Drones

Bubblehead: I am pleased to hear from you that I am "naive but willing to learn." Tell me, am I naive because (1)I think war crimes are being committed? (2)I expect those guilty of war crimes to be held accountable? (3) I expect Congress to do something about it? Am I to infer from your comment that you think everything is okay because it's just political "business as usual," and that's "just the way things work?"

I read today that for the first time our military has used a drone aircraft to kill a couple of Iraqis. This was a Hunter unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) capable of dropping precision bombs. I recall that a few months ago I read that we had a robot patrolling the streets of Bagdad. Does this mean that it will become literally true that "he who has the most toys wins?" There is something I find very disturbing about these developments. Somehow it just doesn't seem right. Of course I guess it would eventually solve the problem of not having enough troops to do the job. Indeed, you would hardly need any troops at all, just a bunch of nerds housed someplace where they could play with their toys. It would certainly put a new face on "war." I guess it also implies that the nation with the most advanced technology would always win. If that's the case we had better watch out for Japan, China, and India who are rapidly outdistancing us in the technology area. As far as I know the Japanese have not yet developed one of their robots to kill (being civilized the idea probably hasn't crossed their minds as yet). I'm not sure just how effective a robotic army/navy/airforce would do against a Chinese army of a million or two dedicated soldiers. They could always dig some simple holes as the Viet Cong did, thus rendering the bombing not so useful (unless maybe we used our nuclear arsenal). This whole idea of using sophisticated machines against enemies (who are, after all, people) raises a host of questions.

Not the least of which is the fact that the very idea is (to me, at least) morally reprehensible! I suppose it's just small potatoes for those who routinely drop bombs from 30,000 feet on innocent civilians (I've never been able to consider this quite acceptable either). Oh, well, I guess if Bush/Cheney decide to go nuclear it really won't matter much one way or the other. I guess this is just the way things work in the "real world" (of the totally insane). Who knows what horrible things the weapons people may have in store for us in the future, but you can bet that at this very moment someone, somewhere, is working on a design so fantastically horrible that we cannot even imagine it. What if someone worked out a way to achieve and maintain peace? Naw, the military/industrial/political crowd would never go for that. There's no profit in it. Frankly, I doubt anyone is even working on it. Only a Dennis Kucinich would think of such a thing (Dennis Kucinich - anyone ever hear of him). I've been reading a lot lately about "savages" and "savagery." I don't know why I bother. All I have to do is read the paper and turn on the news.

LKBIQ:
"As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead trying to kill me. They do not feel any enmity against me as an individual, nor I against them. They are only doing their duty, as the saying goes. Most of them, I have no doubt, are kind-hearted law-abiding men who would never dream of committing murder in private life. On the other hand, if one of them succeeds in blowing me to pieces with a well-placed bomb, he will never sleep any worse for it. He is serving his country, which has the power to absolve him from evil."
George Orwell London. UK. 1941