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".