Drones in the battle

　Way of killing has been changed in last few decades. Human have developed technologies that now people can battle up in the air. But is it really a good thing? I think the answer is NO.
　The video clip about drones we watched in the lecture really shocked me. As I am from Japan, I have very bad images for war and I oppose to war. So I cannot stand seeing the most advanced technology is used to kill people. Also I did not like the American military’s secrecy. They use general citizen for drone training without any notice. I wonder how they are going to explain if something unexpected accident would happen.
　Drones remind me of atomic bomb attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. It seems to me that these people supporting the use of drones have little information about war or not value human life. 残酷ですこと。

Chapter: From a View to a Kill. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it Superman! Wait, oh no, not that! AAAARRRHHHblrpblrp!

It seems as though many people have widely ranging thoughts about what the casualty of non-targets is. Der Derian, “founder of the Information Technology, War, and Peace Project,” claims that “there are no or minimal casualties” from drone operations whereas two “commentators closely identified with the new US counterinsurgency doctrine” say that the drones and their operators “often [kill] more civilians than militants” (https://research.brown.edu/myresearch/James_Der_Derian, Gregory, page 357 of reader). I wonder if Der Derian is referring to no or minimal casualties on our side (granting injuries caused by spilled coffee of course— see drone operators getting higher awards than the bronze star awarded to real combatants http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/15/pentagon-uproar-over-panetta-medal-drone-operators/). Regardless, it sounds very flippant and disrespectful toward human life for double D to use the word minimal when referring to casualties, but I’m satisfied that guys like him and Eric Holder are in charge (drones won’t kill Americans on US soil because that would be inappropriate *cough cough* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jsy01ljGcy0).

It is fascinating to think that “these dead noncombatants [represent] an alienated family, a new desire for revenge, and more recruits for the militant movement,“ because I had not thought about that (Gregory, page 357 of reader). It makes me wonder (not really) if the cut down families are ever reimbursed by the US government for their dead relatives. If we are killing the enemy in order to make more of the enemy, then it seems like our morals suck, but at least we are making the enemy stronger and prolonging the illegal wars!   At least only 13% of Americans think that the US government should launch drone strikes against its citizens who are thought to be threats to the empire, according to a Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/161474/support-drone-attacks-terrorists-abroad.aspx). Still, as we discussed in class, after technology is used in war, it is no just sent to the scrap heap but is often reintegrated into the empire. The same I think will likely be true for drones, and the craze is already starting and drones are being normalized (drones carrying goods to houses, as mentioned in class), just like the balloon and airplane crazes (although the carrying goods thing is likely a PR stunt for Amazaon.com at the most opportune time of the year).  

It is annoying that they (many people supporting drone operations) deem drone use as virtuous war and, as Anderson terms it, “perfect war” (Gregory, p. 258 of reader).  They call it such because they, if they believe themselves, think they can kill certain individuals with precision strikes. This is ludicrous. I hate to copy so much, but here’s a halfway decent example: “Two influential human rights groups say they have freshly documented dozens of civilian deaths in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, contradicting assertions by the Obama administration that such casualties are rare. In Yemen, Human Rights Watch investigated six selected airstrikes since 2009 and concluded that at least 57 of the 82 people killed were civilians, including a pregnant woman and three children who perished in a September 2012 attack,” reports the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/drone-strikes-killing-more-civilians-than-us-admits-human-rights-groups-say/2013/10/21/a99cbe78-3a81-11e3-b7ba-503fb5822c3e_story.html). I’m glad that Obama, our Nobel Peace Prize winner of the anti-war Democrats, is keeping the peace in America by hiding what those sexy drones are really up to.

Many people opposed to drone strikes assert that “late modern war has been reduced to a video game” (Gregory, p. 359). As we discussed in class, there are problems associated with this video game outlook on killin’ level 5 Oompa Loompas. It is problematic that killing baddies will now be like the next awesome version of Halo. What will happen to the souls of the first-person shooters if they start to think of people as those stupid little koopa kids and baby bowsers (that need to be terminated for funsies) in Super Mario Bros Deluxe, which was basically described in a class video (the vid that included the guy who said “I lost that respect for life”).  What will become of the manhood of the little sissies sitting behind the computer screens who swore an oath to annihilate the enemies of our country’s politicians all the while posting uncalled-for screenshots on FaceBook.  The game-like nature of the assassinations departs the user from reality by diving him into the fictitious thrill of a shoot-em-up game (also reminds me of how screen flicker rate can brainwash the computer user into staring at the screen). On the practical side, many “soldiers who had been accustomed as teenagers to playing video games” will require less training than that required for using other special weaponry (Gregory, p.359). Lastly I would say that “I felt like a God hurling thunderbolts from afar,” but some legalized drone assassin already said that (Gregory, p.360). I guess I can still say it. It sounds so fun—I bet it is fun (not to mention manly) killing people that this guy (http://image.naldzgraphics.net/2012/01/10-lazy-worker.jpg) tells you to with no chance of being killed (Gregory, 360). 

Big Brother is Watching?

Our last lecture and the reading "Drone-o-Rama" was thought provoking in the sense that its visible how vulnerable citizens are compared to the government. The fact that drones can be useful to catch criminals, deliver packages instantaneously, and keeping the casualties number low in times of war is all very important. Drones are efficient and the technology is definitely a step towards the future. I even liked the idea of these "drones" being used in warfare as machines that can carry weight and survey dangerous land before humans step into it.
But on the other hand, the technology has made citizens really vulnerable because of the fact that at any point in time, you could be the subject of the drone pilots training (from video watched in lecture) The right to privacy is something we all deserve and that people can watch us and track every move by a touch of a button is scary, especially since they don't even need to ask for permission.
Also the fact that the operation of drones dehumanizes things for the person in control, which can lead to mindless killing because said person was following orders even if there were to be collateral damage.
But, in conclusion, if it keeps people safe and save lives, I am not the one to argue, because at the end of the day these pilots get to go home and see their family and that is something most men at war don't get to do.

From a View to a Kill: Drones and Late Modern War

From a View to a Kill: Drones and Late Modern War

        After reading the article "From a View to a Kill: Drones and Late Modern War" by Derek Gregory, my perception towards Drones in regards to it's purpose and ethical consensus shifted quite drastically. I have never perceived a Drone to be such a viable killing device. When speaking of Drones, the first thing that usually comes to mind, would be to use it for scouting or reconnaissance of surreptitious information. However, as stated within the readings, these drones are often use to assassinate political figures in the middle-east or members of the Al-Qaeda, which raises MANY ( and I capitalize the word many ) controversies politically and ethically, and besmirch the concurrence of many people towards the usage of drones.

        The author described with great details the methods which are required in order to make these drones "work". Usually, these drones are piloted by a pilot and a co-pilot who are sitting behind a computer screen monitoring the drone's every action from the "Ground Control Station". The drones are guided towards a target or a location which was given to them by the pilot. Then, the pilot executes the orders that was given to them.Very much like playing a video game, these pilot can kill just by seeing their target, and because they are so far away from the person they have killed, the theory is that there would be no sophisticated emotional attachment from killing. This raises another concern, regarding the psychological well being of these "pilots" and how killing by just seeing affect their moral judgement. As one would have expected, seeing another person dying because of them, whether it be on a monitor screen or right in front of them, would cause a sense of guilt or at least "uncomfortable-ness". In that regards, depending on what type of person the pilots are, their mental stability are effected drastically.

        Personally, I believe that Drones are magnificent technologies with a lot of potential instill upon it. However, when the drones are turned into killing devices, the ethical consensus of having these drones in the first place, changes radically. If the drones were not associated with killing, people would affiliate themselves more and feel more comfortable with the utilization of drones to make life more convenient ( which people are doing already, but there are still some difficulty in many areas ).

Micah just checked in @

Google Earth definitely puts the use of satellites and various technologies to a different level. It is revolutionary, in my opinion, because it has definitely made this advanced technology widely accessible to the public. However, I also understand the argument that advancements such as Google Earth and "check ins" may also pose a scare in that they make it easier to trace people's whereabouts and properties (as is connected to the experiment by Erik Born and Leif Toudal Pederson). I believe, however, that the technology is still a work in progress but despite the cons, it is still worth using and appreciating. The tool, although is not accurate, is still apparently real and is extremely helpful not only for scientists to conduct experiments/observations but also for laypeople to become more aware of different surroundings and to "travel virtually". 

Video Games vs. Real Life

This week’s reading actually surprised me. I was especially drawn to it because I am embarrassingly uninformed on the subject, and found it extremely interesting how they related it to such a big part of growing up and of our society. Video games have become part of a male’s lifestyle for what seems like his whole life, but they are not just limited to men. These video games, regardless of how real they may seem, are not a real indication of how these situations would play out in real life. Personally, I had always wondered about the similarities and differences between video games and actual combat and so this article was pretty cool to read. Gregory mentions, “immersion in video games is discontinuous—levels are re-started, situations re-set, games paused—and… immersion in the live video feeds is intrinsically continuous” (Gregory 198). Video games are a fun way to pretend like you are in the armed forces, but still have full control over everything, whereas in real life (and similarly the live video feed used to train them) nothing is guaranteed to be under your control and you need to be ready for anything. Another interesting point he made was the fact that a trained soldier has to face the emotional and mental distress that comes with causing and seeing death. The video feeds are claimed to help them in training by providing real images that can replicate possible situations, and therefore when they are in combat they experience everything. Shooting missiles is a real act and seeing death is a real sensation; it still affects them. I found this to be pretty impressive that the military uses such high-tech material to ensure the soldiers are the best prepared for real-life action and its consequences.   

The Web-Wide World

The Web-Wide World excerpt got me very interested in the way that these types of navigation technology work and how they allow the public eye to see much more than they used to. The article reads that there is now "...renewed hope that every sort of information... will become available to all with a few moves of the mouse" when it comes to a "digital earth". I found this very intriguing because having this sort of information can both help and harm. It would allow scientists and researchers obtain more information to conduct studies and further the public knowledge. Issues that involve the planet's climate and "global warming" can be observed more as well, when a 'digital earth' is able to be used.
Google Earth has what seems to be an infinite bank of pictures and images from street view to the view of the whole Earth and everything in between. It allows for users to easily access the view of the Earth which is what I like about it most. We can see places and things that we would not be able to see in person, even though through a computer screen. As a person who does not get to travel much, it is nice to see an extremely detailed map that I can 'visit' without actually visiting.  However, there could be many private boundaries crossed especially when earth is zoomed on a more personal, intimate level like what Google Earth can do. When you first use Google Earth, you usually zoom in on your house or a friend's house first. It may be fun for you, but the thought of every person (accessible to Google Earth) can do the same to your house, frightens me. It's something that can be good or bad. It is beneficial in the sense that people can see where they are going or what their destination looks like so going from place to place would be easier. However, if someone has an address, they can look up the exact location and see personal items and vehicles, and other things that can tie you to your house and/or location.
Overall, I think that the creation of a database like Google Earth is very beneficial, though I do have some concern when it comes to the privacy of others.

The influence of aerial views

The excerpt from Dreikausen’s book offered a few new aspects of aerial views which I personally find very interesting. I never knew that da Vinci was so interested in landscapes, let alone aerial perspectives. I have actually seen the Mona Lisa twice and never really noticed the landscape in the background. It is also fascinating that, once you think about it, you start seeing forms of landscapes in such a variety of abstract paintings. The idea of expressing certain ideas about for example nations and identity through landscapes and surroundings has extended from maps to paintings.
Then there is also the psychological aspect of aerial perception. “[…] human perception is a psychological fusion of multiple experiences, aerial perception deals with other ideas than merely the perspective of landscape seen from the air.” (325) An aerial view can also include a physical experience – the “sensation of flying”. (325)
An aerial view does not just mean looking from above; there are different ways of aerial perception and each of them contains different information and provokes different feelings. I think that the vertical view can rather be related to maps (grid pattern, “perceived in forms of topographic shape and size” 328) while the oblique view rather relates to landscapes (“wide-open space” 328). In addition to that, the aerial view is not only an enrichment for matters of aesthetics but also for historical aspects. Earthworks or Roman centuriations have been discovered from above.
All in all, it is quite stunning to realize that there is so much more to an aerial view than just the view itself; there are so many different fields that are actually influenced by the possibility of perceiving things from the air.

Walruses, Ethics, and Google Earth

Google Earth is so much more amazing to me after reading "The web-wide world" and "The ethics of Google Earth: Crossing thresholds from spacial data to landscape visualisation." The potential it has to make a difference in people's perceptions of places and issues is limitless, and all this time I thought it was just a cool tool to look up my house so I could see an aerial view of it. In "The web-wide world," Declan Butler writes, "by offering researchers an easy way into GIS software, Google Earth and other visual globes are set to go beyond representing the world, and start changing it." One such researcher, biologist Erik Born, is using the technology to track walruses. The fact that we can also see the walruses' movement is incredible. Just a decade or so ago this sort of wide-spread access to GIS software was unheard of, and now it is an everyday thing. 

However, some people are less thrilled about this access than Butler is. The authors of "the ethics of Google Earth" made some good points about the darker side of Google Earth. The problem that can arise stems from "apparent realism." Google Earth is not perfect, and sometimes distortions of images can occur. Since virtual globes can trigger "emotional and intuitive responses," these distortions can be potentially dangerous. A bad mix of people's general belief in maps as fact + distortion of an image on the map + "emotional and intuitive responses" and you can get a large group of people fired up over something that may not even be an issue. 

The web- wide world

Google Earth seems to captivate anyone who uses it and leave them in awe and wanting more. With this tool, any person is able to travel and see lands and seas that are accurate and inspect them with tilting or zooming mechanisms. In “The web- wide world” by Declan Butler, the benefits and power of Google Earth is described, specifically what it may provide for the scientific world as well as the common crowd.  Butler begins his article with the example of tagging walruses and how the biologists, along with anyone else with the software, can follow the actions of these creatures regardless of wherever they may be. For an animal enthusiast, for the biologists, and for anyone else interested, technology like this is a kind of blessing when following the animals is out of financial or physical reach. One can explore the rest of the world and admire the vast oceans or the highest of mountains with almost no limit. Technology like this can help with research or simple education if the right mind uses it to its full potential. I feel that software and technology should be revolutionized and altered to replicate the abilities that Google Earth provides and that it should be available to anyone. As David Whiteman puts it in the article, “As soon as one group shows that this is useful, everyone will adopt it.”

Apparent Realism, Accuracy, and Abstract

Tuesday’s readings and the guest speaker, Ruth Mostern discussed Google Earth. Both the readings and Mostern described the advantages and disadvantages of Google Earth and other online maps. The advantages include the fact that anyone can easily use Google Earth, plus, the entire world is included on Google Earth. However, the disadvantages come from the fact that Google Earth is technology, and as Ruth Mostern said, “technology is only as good as it is.” Therefore, there are often distortions and alterations in the images on Google Earth. For instance, when the environmentalists wanted to stop logging, they turned to Google Earth as a resource, however, the images they used were slightly distorted. Thursday’s readings were about Aerial Perception and abstract art. At first, I didn’t see a connection between Tuesday’s and Thursday’s readings. However, Mostern discussed the difference between apparent realism and accuracy. I think that society tends to believe all technological advancements are always reliable and accurate, but in reality, the technology does not always have the most (and correct) information. Technology is apparent realism. On the other hand, society seems to criticize abstract art. However, abstract art can have even more and accurate information than technology. For instance, Joyce Kozloff’s pieces in American History, that Dr. Kaplan was talking about in lecture, contains a vast amount of information.

Google Earth

I thought the whole topic about Google Earth and its many uses was very interesting. Google Earth is a really powerful tool that allows users to explore just about anywhere on Earth from the comfort of their living room. For the past couple of years I've been using Google Earth as a fun little toy that I can use to look at my house back home, or avoid awkward situations by looking up what my destination looks like before hand when I'm traveling. I have never really thought about the real potential that Google Earth had until I read these articles. The fact that Erik Born and Leif Toudal Pederson were able to use Google Earth, a free software available to everyone, and track the movement and behavior of walruses in response to changes in ice is astonishing. What is even more amazing is that now, most phones come with GPS technology built-in which is both reassuring and a little creepy. Google Earth and GIS technology opens up a whole new world of data collecting and mapping that we never would have dreamed of a couple years ago. This sort of powerful software that is free and available to anyone with an internet connection really gets me excited about what technology has in store for us in the future.