Problems with Drone Warfare

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"More Russians died at just Stalingrad, than all the Americans killed in WW II."

Not surprising as the war was fought on their home lands. But there was also the differences in fighting styles. Patton said he'd trade one million artillery rounds for one live GI.

[Mike Cl]

"More Russians died at just Stalingrad, than all the Americans killed in WW II."

Not surprising as the war was fought on their home lands. But there was also the differences in fighting styles. Patton said he'd trade one million artillery rounds for one live GI.

That makes sense--it would give him more to slap.

[widdershins]

"More Russians died at just Stalingrad, than all the Americans killed in WW II."

Not surprising as the war was fought on their home lands. But there was also the differences in fighting styles. Patton said he'd trade one million artillery rounds for one live GI.

If I remember correctly it was this "difference in fighting style" that sparked the Cold War immediately after the war.  The Russians were pissed that it was all their people fighting and dying.  They had the perception that we didn't care about Russian lives and were more than happy to send them to the slaughter while we sat back and did the safer shit, which probably wasn't too far from the truth.

[Baruch]

If I remember correctly it was this "difference in fighting style" that sparked the Cold War immediately after the war.  The Russians were pissed that it was all their people fighting and dying.  They had the perception that we didn't care about Russian lives and were more than happy to send them to the slaughter while we sat back and did the safer shit, which probably wasn't too far from the truth.

I think we overestimate how much GB and US are allies ... and we overestimate how much Russia and the US are enemies.  De Toqueville was read by many people, and he was spot on, 100 years ahead of his time.

Stalin and the other leaders had their hidden agendas.  Stalin would have loved for the Axis to lose ... and all the Allies except him to lose too.  The US wanted the same, and got its wish (thanks to geography).  One historian has rated that the damage to the Soviet Union done by Germany, was essentially effective but too late.  The Soviet Union never recovered from WW II, but limped on for a few decades before expiring from its fatal wounds.  But another dictator like Stalin would have killed it too.

[Flanker1Six]

I got to wondering about this after watching a trailer for Eye in the Sky, about a woman drone operator who has a 13 year old girl walk into the kill zone causing her great angst and a reevaluation of her career.  There have been two or three other movies in the last couple of years following this plot.  In addition, there has been criticism of drone warfare because of similar collateral damage like blowing up weddings.  There may be other reasons to criticize drone warfare, too.  But are the problems with drone warfare any different than problems with 20 year old warfare, where more conventional weapons caused the same kind of damage, and I would venture on an even wider scale?  Or are the criticisms of drones, just an extension of the criticisms of war in general?

I would be cautious in using a fictional situation; made by people/organizations with a usually lefty agenda as a template for any moralizing about lethal violence.   

Droning (as a verb); as with any ranged weapon may give you a number of unwanted results.   These can be the result of a deliberate policy/decision (i.e. drone the ******* no matter when and where they are), or the size/damage capability of the actual weapon/warhead (9mm bullet vs 250lb HE warhead----the bigger the bang, the more likely you'll snag up others who weren't the intended target), or "technical" issues; i.e. intercontinental drone operation, or even theater operation from several hundred miles away.  Any signal delay due to distance between the drone operator and drone, or signal degradation/disruption for whatever reason might induce enough lag between pressing the firing button, and launching the weapon; to allow non targets to enter the impact area (the warhead size issue again).  Time of flight of the weapon may also permit others to enter the blast radius.

While I've never participated in any decision/policy making regarding droning; my own experience in making life/death affecting decisions for others suggest policy makers are likely quite sensitive to collateral damage issues.   Whether it's counter terrorism, COIN, or whatever.............modern military/intelligence ops are partially made of media warfare, as well as the more traditional political/military aspects.   Beyond the simple moral dimension of NOT KILLING people you didn't intend to; policy/decision makers know how important public perception is in getting to a desired end state (commonly referred to as "winning").  Snagging up kids, wedding parties, etc is very bad for the war effort/COIN/CT; from a keeping the locals and home front on our side perspective.  One of the biggest policy/decision making modifiers is target value.   I'm guessing...................but I assume policy/decision makers would be willing to accept more collateral "risk" if the target was important enough.   WHO is making the decision?  What pay grade does the launch call go to?  Is there a set of standard launch parameters in place to allow the drone operator to autonomously fire at their discretion?   Gets complicated doesn't it?   

Size does matter!   Smaller is better................and there has been a very definite effort to develop smaller weapons to minimize collateral damage (see paragraph above) on impact.  Hellfire antitank missile were/are the default weapon of choice due to availability within US inventory, technical capability (e.g. destructiveness), and accuracy (laser guidance).   They have around a 25lb warhead which is highly directional as it's designed to use a molten metal jet to burn through a lot of metal (tanks)..............."but" they do have a 15 to 20 meter blast radius when they go off.  You get quite a lot of bits and pieces flying off in all directions, and as with any explosion the air compresses so densely it becomes a semi/near solid that can pulp soft objects and/or seriously **** up lungs and other internal organs, even if all the fast moving bits 'n pieces miss soft squishy things.   Additionally, the explosion blows off a lot of stuff from the target/target site which in turn becomes more fragmentation.  The media hasn't really caught on to it, that I know of, but there has been a transition to the Griffin missile system for a number of launch platforms.  It's about half the size of a Hellfire and equally accurate.  Accuracy----laser guided systems are accurate..............they do and will fail sometimes.  Atmospheric obscurants (dust, fog, smoke, etc) can cause a REAL problem with the seeker head being unable to track the laser, the guidance/steering fins can fail one way or another, there are A LOT of REALLY small electronic bits and pieces  inside the missiles.  Ever have your comp just quit working on you?  Missiles can have that **** happen too!  Be glad your comp doesn't have a 25lb warhead in it when that ****** goes south..................be very upsetting to your family and neighbors! 

Gets complicated doesn't it.    In the end; droning is far more accurate, and less destructive than aerial bombing, or indirect fire by artillery/mortars..........but it's still destructive.   

       

[SGOS]

Gets complicated doesn't it.    In the end; droning is far more accurate, and less destructive than aerial bombing, or indirect fire by artillery/mortars..........but it's still destructive.

That's what I would have thought.

[widdershins]

Gets complicated doesn't it.    In the end; droning is far more accurate, and less destructive than aerial bombing, or indirect fire by artillery/mortars..........but it's still destructive.   

I once had a vet show me a video on his computer from an attack chopper that was watching some people.  The moment they saw an RPG they opened fire.  But they had a setting wrong and the projectiles (are they still "bullets" if they explode and go right through Superman?) went somewhere else.  They were so far away that the insurgents didn't even notice.  They fixed  the setting and opened fire again.  One man hid behind the truck and they shot him right through the engine block.  So, they do have more accurate ways to take people out, but I'm sure drones are a whole lot more "present" and cost effective than filling the skies with Black Hawks 24/7.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If I remember correctly it was this "difference in fighting style" that sparked the Cold War immediately after the war.  The Russians were pissed that it was all their people fighting and dying.  They had the perception that we didn't care about Russian lives and were more than happy to send them to the slaughter while we sat back and did the safer shit, which probably wasn't too far from the truth.

That was the line Stalin pitched. I've spoken with Russian history professors about this and one of the things they were taught was that Dieppe and D-day were both raids of about equal size.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That makes sense--it would give him more to slap.

One school of thought says that getting the men "back in the saddle" quickly after a shell shock event actually promoted their recovery.

[Mike Cl]

One school of thought says that getting the men "back in the saddle" quickly after a shell shock event actually promoted their recovery.

I spose.  Don't think that would work with most of the soldiers of today.  And I doubt it was all that effective then, either.  A man's mind and spirit are broken because of all the blood, gore and violence he has seen and caused-----and letting him see and cause more will heal that mind and spirit?  Somehow I don't think so.  But who knows?

And Patton was crazier than a shithouse rat--but with enough genius to overlook or contain that craziness. 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I spose.  Don't think that would work with most of the soldiers of today.  And I doubt it was all that effective then, either.  A man's mind and spirit are broken because of all the blood, gore and violence he has seen and caused-----and letting him see and cause more will heal that mind and spirit?  Somehow I don't think so.  But who knows?

And Patton was crazier than a shithouse rat--but with enough genius to overlook or contain that craziness. 

The philosophy was that getting them back into action made the period where they doubted themselves shorter. Empirical, and limited, data makes me inclined to agree with that. 

[Mike Cl]

The philosophy was that getting them back into action made the period where they doubted themselves shorter. Empirical, and limited, data makes me inclined to agree with that.

If that were so, would there ever be any long lasting ptsd?

[Flanker1Six]

MIke, and Gawdzilla.......................you both have valid points. 

Like any mental/emotional illness, shell shock(WW I era), combat stress reaction/battle fatigue (WW II era), and  now known as PTSD is a sliding scale, not an on/off switch.  All people have their unique qualities, capabilities, and capacities.  Modifying factors are many; i.e. degree, frequency, & quality of home contact, brief to moderate pauses in the stressors, opportunity/ability to "constructively" blow off steam, etc.   Giving people a highly individual ability to absorb physical and mental stress (I taught stress management for a former agency for several years) over time.  If both of us lived through the same combat situation; it might put me in the pysch ward; whereas you might come through relatively unscathed.  In WW II there was a standard time period (in days--which I've forgotten) the Army used to calculate when to pull units out of line for R & R.  Needless to say; that wasn't always adhered to.  And there were certainly fakers who were dodging their duty/combat.   

Which gets to your points on treatment and the infamous Patton slapping incidents.   Treatment is also highly variable.  Could be just a few hours to a couple days break from combat (very well portrayed in one of the Band of Brother series episodes when Easy Company was in combat in the Battle of the Bulge)  to hospitalization, sustained drug therapy, psychoanalysis,  behavioral therapy, etc.   You're both right to a degree............but in the end one size treatment does not fit all.   

Patton was dead wrong in both incidents.  He knew NOTHING about the particulars of either case (the only way to determine proper course of treatment); just blew his stack (ironically indicating a preexisting stress build up and a somewhat low level of stress tolerance!) when told what they were there for (exhaustion-1st incident, nerves-2nd incident), and the rest is history. 

Contrary to what is frequently portrayed in TV and the movies.............my experience with serving and former service personnel who had PTSD was actually pretty good.  No rolling/jerking eyeballs, no violent tendencies, alcohol/drug swilling.   My off the cuff lay assessment of them would be mild to moderate cases.  The biggest thing I noticed was they tended to be easily excited/aggravated in some instances---I had no trouble deescalating them (but then I've been trained for it, and have done a lot of it), and in the end they were good people to work with.       

[Mike Cl]

MIke, and Gawdzilla.......................you both have valid points. 

Like any mental/emotional illness, shell shock(WW I era), combat stress reaction/battle fatigue (WW II era), and  now known as PTSD is a sliding scale, not an on/off switch.  All people have their unique qualities, capabilities, and capacities.  Modifying factors are many; i.e. degree, frequency, & quality of home contact, brief to moderate pauses in the stressors, opportunity/ability to "constructively" blow off steam, etc.   Giving people a highly individual ability to absorb physical and mental stress (I taught stress management for a former agency for several years) over time.  If both of us lived through the same combat situation; it might put me in the pysch ward; whereas you might come through relatively unscathed.  In WW II there was a standard time period (in days--which I've forgotten) the Army used to calculate when to pull units out of line for R & R.  Needless to say; that wasn't always adhered to.  And there were certainly fakers who were dodging their duty/combat.   

Which gets to your points on treatment and the infamous Patton slapping incidents.   Treatment is also highly variable.  Could be just a few hours to a couple days break from combat (very well portrayed in one of the Band of Brother series episodes when Easy Company was in combat in the Battle of the Bulge)  to hospitalization, sustained drug therapy, psychoanalysis,  behavioral therapy, etc.   You're both right to a degree............but in the end one size treatment does not fit all.   

Patton was dead wrong in both incidents.  He knew NOTHING about the particulars of either case (the only way to determine proper course of treatment); just blew his stack (ironically indicating a preexisting stress build up and a somewhat low level of stress tolerance!) when told what they were there for (exhaustion-1st incident, nerves-2nd incident), and the rest is history. 

Contrary to what is frequently portrayed in TV and the movies.............my experience with serving and former service personnel who had PTSD was actually pretty good.  No rolling/jerking eyeballs, no violent tendencies, alcohol/drug swilling.   My off the cuff lay assessment of them would be mild to moderate cases.  The biggest thing I noticed was they tended to be easily excited/aggravated in some instances---I had no trouble deescalating them (but then I've been trained for it, and have done a lot of it), and in the end they were good people to work with.       

Thanks for the info.  I know nothing about ptsd--or very little.  So, it does not surprise me that this is like everything else that deals with people.  Each of us is unique.  And we react in unique ways.  In fact, it is not unusual for each of us to react to similar happenings in a different way.  Guidelines are helpful, but does not cover all instances for anything. 

[drunkenshoe]

A bunch of people -save Mike- from a country that hasn't seen war on its soil for 250 years are discussing on how wars are necessary for technology and under what circumstances drone warfare is OK or not.

You know what, I believe there is real 'equality' in the US. Political opinions do not actually change between jesus freaks and secular democrats.  It's just the vocabulary that changes. They are mostly, pretty 'equal'.


I am curious if a new civil war would make America human again. Hmm.