But now you can actually kill actual people, remotely, on screen. And that worries me -- That it will make killing to easy, too antiseptic. So I guess that I'm heartened, if somewhat disturbed, by an article that recently appeared in GQ (of all places): "Confessions of a Drone Warrior".
It's the future of warfare, I suppose. But it comes at a price. Are you prepared to pay it? (Or, let somebody else pay for it while we reap the benefits?
Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"
ReplyDeleteA robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
So drone warfare directly violates the First Law... why are they still allowed to be used in offensive attacks?!?
DeleteUnfortunately, Madison, Asimov's laws are fictional. He's considering robots who have gained sentience -- self-awareness. (The 2nd law would also be violated in this instance. Asimov wants to be very thorough.)
DeleteGo here: http://www.openculture.com/2012/10/isaac_asimov_explains_his_three_laws_of_robotics.html for more information. (And check out the whole website while you're there. I've got it bookmarked.)
Hi everyone. I have several comments on the article "Confessions of a Drone Warrior", most of which deal with the tone in which things are described. But first, doesn't the fact that the drone warriors are being ordered to kill humans cause confliction between the first and second Laws of Robotics? Anyway, I found several passages that caused me to react in different ways while reading this article.
ReplyDelete1) "I just watched him. I watched him become the same color as the ground he was lying on."(1)-Does anyone else find this idea extremely disturbing? Watching a man's life force drain out of him in the form of blood is slightly different than watching a living creature's body "cool". I mean, it's a unique way to describe a strange experience but still...
2)“It’s like playing Dungeons & Dragons,” says Bryant. “Roll a d20 to see if you hit your target.” His training inspector, watching over his shoulder, would count down to impact and say, “Splash! You killed everyone.”(2)-Another disturbing idea. The idea of treating the killing of human beings as a game, and a childish one as that, where every time you "win", you get a countdown and a verbal high-five, is strange to me. Maybe it was the only way that the men firing the drones could cope with what they were doing.
3)So the pilot’s after-action report stated that the building had been destroyed, the high-value target eliminated. The report made no mention of a dog or any other living thing. The child, if there had been a child, was an infrared ghost.(3)-Why isn't there even the slightest care for the kid? I know that "collateral damage" is a fact of war, but they could have at least acknowledged the poor child. The red tape around that firing sequence is unmistakable.
4)“We were going after top dudes. They started showing us PowerPoint presentations on who these people are,” he says. “Why we’re after him, and what he did. I liked that. I liked being able to know shit like that.”(3)-Finally, a showing of human emotion in the idea that we are killing people without even being present at the kill site. I am not trying to bash the drone warrior program in my comments. In fact, I support it. But, I only really support firings like the ones this passage described, where there is a known reason for killing. It doesn't make killing people right, but it does make it seem somewhat less wrong.
5) All those statements about being numb and zombified- The repetition of any action can cause this action to become more and more mundane, not matter how awful or good it may be. This realization can be seen in Power's case when he quits and hears his kill count. Suddenly, his work wasn't just push the button and they die, it was, "I've killed so many people...". That realization is sickening and terrifying. So is the idea that you had and used all that power to make it happen. The zombification may go as far as to the point where you can joke around and say things like "Siri, have those people killed." or "he looked up at the faces and asked: “What motherfucker’s gonna die today?”", but, at the end, you realize that with every kill, you lost a bit of your emotion and your humanity.
Overall, I liked the article. I didn't realize that that kind of tech was out there or in use. The idea of drone warriors is appealing (considering the lower risk on our end) but also terrifying. Who’s to say that, if we have the technology, other nations don't? Who can claim that, considering the fact that the entire flight is computerized, we could harm ourselves or suffer a virus-like takeover of the program? Finally, who has the mental capability to consciously fly those missions?
Like I said under Dallon's post, who knows what other countries are doing with their technology. They could even be ahead of us and already have drones that track specific people or something crazy like that.
DeleteWhat I find of some consolation is the fact that the "Sensor" (as they are sci-fi-ingly called), Bryant, was affected by all the things you mention. "Turning the same color as the ground", I thought, really brought it home. Someone becomes inert.
DeleteThis drone warfare.
The first thing that stood out to me was that the drone operators suffered as a result of what they do. Showing that the operators realize that they are taking lives is encouraging, in my opinion, to the idea of drone warfare. However, the military shouldn’t fail to treat the operators’ “moral injury,” and it shouldn’t be seen as less serious compared to the mental/emotional suffering that other soldiers have to go through. Morally, if there is “collateral damage” as a result of a drone strike, it means that regular citizens were murdered. The death and injury of non-combatants is a problem, but not one that is unique to drone warfare.
ReplyDeleteI think that the drone program should be pushed and expanded as much as possible. To me, this situation seems similar to the atomic bomb situation during the 1940s in that, like the US led the rest of the world in the development of the atomic bomb, the US should lead all of the other countries in the drone warfare department. The US drone program should be something that is feared by enemies and used to discourage attacks on the US. It is better to be able to attack than to be forced to defend drone attacks from enemies. Also, the drone program should be developed for a way to defend against similar means by enemies, because we cannot assume that other countries do not have this same type of technology.
I do not see warfare in the future solely based on drones. It’s unrealistic that there will be an international robotic competition between North Korea and the United States where the winner takes control of the losing country. An damaged piece of metal does nothing to stop dictatorships or genocide or any other possible situation that can be used to justify war. The use of drones should not be treated like chemical warfare and banned completely during conflicts. It is an advantage that the US has and should continue to hold until there is a reason not to that puts national security in jeopardy.
Didn't the leaders of the Manhattan project try and ban the atomic bomb after they saw its atrocities? Also other countries have drones.
DeleteI like your point about the enemies and the suspicion the U.S. should have about other countries having the same technology. For all we know North Korea has a plan to launch drones over Washington D.C. to keep an eye on our officials. It could be a possibility and I think the U.S. just needs to remember that we aren't invincible.
DeleteYou have to be careful about the "it's okay for us to do it because we're good" argument. We're good from where we sit. But imagine if it were another nation -- pick one -- flying its drones over our territory, maybe killing somebody in our family. By accident. Even so, I think we'd see it differently.
DeleteIt’s comforting to know that most of the people who have the position of operating a drone still have a conscience. Although it’s horrible to see so many people coming out with post traumatic stress disorder, I find this somewhat hopeful that Americans have not become immune to the result of death from the video games that have impacted our lives. I can’t even image the feeling of taking someone else’s life like that. Drone warfare has so many promising advantages, but here are too many holes in it to work.
ReplyDeleteI think drone warfare should only be used for the protection of our troops. Bryant first mentioned how drones were used to search out IEDs, insurgent activity, and other threats that could be awaiting to harm our troops. Locating these threats to the troops who are in combat should always be a priority to the drone operators. One could argue that eliminating suspected terrorists is doing this job, but the targets that the operators are aiming at are not truly known to the operators. They are told by higher ranked officials of what the targets supposedly are. Bryant said it perfectly when he said, “ He was told that they were carrying rifles on their shoulders, but for all he knew, they were shepherd’s staffs. Still, the directive from somewhere above, a mysterious chain of command that led straight to his headset, was clear: confirmed weapons.” The actual removal of the targets should be left to the men on the ground do that they can judge for themselves what the actual situations and they won’t harm innocent people.
I find the fact that some people are okay with killing through the drone warfare has no effect on them. People have to realize that you are actually taking someone’s life away. Bryant felt extremely guilty after all of the missions that he was ordered to partake in. “It took him a long time to die. I just watched him. I watched him become the same color as the ground he was lying on”. The use of this robotic warfare is almost training soldiers like videogames are training the youth of our nation today that death is no big deal. In his training Bryant came across one of his inspectors who had no problem with what he was doing. “His training inspector, watching over his shoulder, would count down to impact and say, “Splash! You killed everyone.” This disturbing fact seems to be how our attitudes towards war will be if we continue to advance drone warfare. Soldiers who go out into battle will no longer experience or think of death for how it really is, a tragic thing.
If I were running the program, I'd develop tests to find out those who could do the job without the moral repercussions, or at least find techniques to minimize the emotional fallout. "Yes, I think it can be very easily done. . ."
DeleteI think that this is seriously some messed up stuff. I do not personally agree with warfare or how the military handles things, but this makes me even more disgusted. Someone who is killing other human beings, behind a machine or not, still gets affected morally. I just can't register the fact that people would look at it as something less then real warfare.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the fact that Bryant had no idea why or who he was killing before the power points just blows my mind. This man was killing people, these men were killing people, and not even knowing why.
I must say that the way this man reacted gives me some peace of mind because he felt so strongly about what he was doing and that he knew what was wrong from right. In some of these situations the people lose their sense of judgement and independence and go along with what they are told, but Bryant came across as very strong willed and he knew when something wasn't right. I have so much respect for him because of that.
I believe that drone warfare should be used in very specific cases. If it is too dangerous to get our ground men to an area or something needs to be handled quickly, then that is the time for them to be used. Drone warfare is also an invasion of privacy for those who are in the area that is being watched. "He watched the targets drink tea with friends, play with their children, have sex with their wives on rooftops, writhing under blankets."
We're all repulsed by drone warfare -- but still in favor of it (within limitations, of course).
DeleteIs drone warfare the violent video game scenario we’ve been warned about for so many years? I guess, in a way, it is. The drone soldiers have to watch the war through a computer screen and, in a way, it’s just like any COD game out there – find the target and take it out, all from the comfort of your home. Except these ‘gamers’ are manning their stations from inside a dark box lit by only computers. That’s not quite the video game environment. While it might seem like an impersonal game to those not involved, to those manning the drones, it’s war just like being out on the ground. ““It’s like playing Dungeons & Dragons,” says Bryant. “Roll a d20 to see if you hit your target.” His training inspector, watching over his shoulder, would count down to impact and say, “Splash! You killed everyone.”” And that knowledge that you just killed someone thousand miles away is just as damaging as seeing the man up close.
ReplyDeleteSometimes it’s not the thought of an impersonal kill that hurts the ‘drone warriors’. The men can be hurt because they’re not even able to help their own men. It’s sort of like watching a TV show. You know exactly what’s going to happen to the ‘characters’ just like the drone soldiers knew that the convoy was in trouble with the IED planted in their path. While they were supposed to be protecting the people on the ground, they couldn’t without being able to get in contact with them via radio. Unfortunately, the soldiers had their signals scrambled and they were unable to get into contact with them. They had to watch helplessly as the convoy exploded. It’s psychologically damaging – just like it would’ve been on the ground. While you might not be able to feel the actual explosion, sometimes watching without being able to save the men with the knowledge you have is even worse; survivor’s guilt from thousands of miles away.
Overall, this article was informative. I knew that there was ‘impersonal warfare’ going on, but I never really knew that much about drone warfare, or the men involved in it. This first hand account is interesting and I’ve got to show it to my brother. He might be into learning about this sort of thing, too. I don’t think we’ll ever go as far as to have wars purely using drones, mainly because I can only see it turning out like two or more nations playing dogfights with RC planes over everyone’s heads. That’d be great if it meant no human casualties in war, but it’s not really a war if there’s nobody dying, is it. And it probably wouldn’t even turn into kids playing planes; it’d turn into impersonal bombings (probably of civilians) via small planes. That’s just the sort of world I see when it comes to warfare. War will never become that impersonal. Someone’s always going to get hurt. I know that it’d mean man to man combat, but, if we’re lucky, maybe drone warfare will become banned like chemical warfare already is. War is becoming too much like a game again (if you look back in history and see all those ‘gentleman’s game’ wars fought by sheer number of troops, when they’d line up in neat rows and wait to be mowed down) but this video warfare (if I can call it that) is even less personal than that. If I was a soldier, I’d rather be shot by a man I can see than killed by an RC plane. It’s just (what I’d consider) to be common warfare etiquette. Shoot me down or blow me up, just don’t do it with a toy.
Veronica Spadaro
"And it probably wouldn’t even turn into kids playing planes; it’d turn into impersonal bombings (probably of civilians) via small planes."
DeleteOh, the possibilities are endless, if you think about them. I'm sure that movies are already being made with these scenarios. Calling Jack Bauer! Calling Jack Bauer!
Who or what would you target, if you were a terrorist with a drone?
Hey Everyone,
ReplyDeleteHow about that ride in? I guess that's why they call it Sin City!
But on a serious note, this conflicted with my emotions on war. I like to think of myself of a history buff, especially of World War 2. That war is considered to be the bloodiest war of all time. We ended that war with our two atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. I was all for those bombs. Yes, innocent civilians died, but more people, more Americans, would have died if we had to land invade Japan. By the time we bombed the daylights out of Japan, the war should have been over. But Japan was a culture where they would die than surrender to us. We needed to do something drastic to end the war to save lives.
On that note, I'll share my highly respected and coveted opinion on drone attacks. I am for drone attacks because they save American lives. BUT, I am not supporting drone attacks that are used with reckless abandon. I want drones that are actually our "guardian angel's" for our soldiers. I want drones that kill a group of insurgents and keep foot soldiers out of a firefight. But, sadly the way our commanders are using the drone strikes I do not condone. It seems to me that when their might be a possible civilian killed in order to kill a terrorists, they say, excuse my language, "fuck it well say we thought it was a dog or something." We wonder as Americans why terrorists kill our civilians? It is because of reckless acts of warfare like this.
Also, Bryant definitely has PTSD. I don't care if you are curb stumping someone or drone striking someone, taking a life is taking a life anyway you put it. To say he wouldn't be affected by it is ignorant and inconsiderate.
Do you think the post-effects of the bombs were justified? You don't think there was a better way to end the War? On another note, I like your points about drone warfare and using it for its real purpose.
DeleteSo killing other people from other countries is better than losing the life of an American solider? I don't mean to be rude or unpatriotic but a soldier is a member of the army. They signed up for the fight. Not the innocent people in Japan who were killed, particularly in the second bombing.
DeleteWe're all saying that intent plays a huge part in this. I suppose that matters. But if you're the innocent victim, I wonder how much.
DeleteIt's a complicated world out there, Class, I'm sorry to say.
I have very mixed emotions about this article. I do not think that drone warfare is a good idea nor is it necessary in most cases. However, there are certain cases where it is very useful and saves more lives than it destroys.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason I can think of to use drone warfare is to kill terrorists, when they are alone. Why would you risk so many American's lives when you could kill the terrorist with just one shot without killing anyone else? When our country is attempting to kill a terrorist, it is so they can't kill anyone else, so it doesn't make sense to risk our own men's lives when it isn't necessary. However, other than for this reason, I do not see drone warfare as anything necessary or good.
There is one part of the article where Bryant talks about sending a Hellfire down to a house, and before it exploded, seeing what looked like a child run out and around this corner of the house. After the explosion, the figure was gone. This story honestly sickened me. And the fact that they just assumed it was a dog or something...that's just messed up. Bryant was very concerned about killing the innocent civilian, which does give me a little relief, but he didn't really do much about it.
My last comment is on the number of people Bryant killed in his 6 years of service. 1,126. Thats about 188 per year...one person every 2 days. No wonder he has PTSD. Killing is killing, whether you are behind a machine or not. Anyone killing that many people in that short of time is more than likely to have some sort of after effect or disorder.
From what is reported in the rest of the article, I don't think those were all due to Bryant himself, but the group that he was working with. (By the way, it was 1626, not 1126. A sizable number, either way.
DeleteI don't know that I agree with the idea of drone warfare being far worse than standard warfare- the idea of a good man like Bryant in a secure location when he could easily be in the thick of battle is too precious to me- but everything in this article supports the idea of it being at least on par with it in levels of horror. You can take away the risk of physical harm to a soldier, but his or her psyche will still be exposed and vulnerable. The only way to ever fix that would be to take out the human element entirely. That's why the idea of a "Siri" drone, a machine designed to offset the blame of the deaths, is what bothered me the most in this article. My gut reaction is to resist humanity and empathy being entirely phased out in war by machines and calculations, as I assume most people's would be. But at the same time, if such a thing is truly an option, it feels almost selfish to ask a man like Bryant to undergo this psychological trauma just to avoid offending the moral sensibilities of civilians like me. The idea of how we will more forward with the concept of drone warfare scares me much more than any of the problems of the present. This may just be one of those issues with no right answer, and I'm not sure if the world is prepared for that.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to choose, I'd choose for people killing people. Not people using machines to kill people, and certainly not machines without people killing people.
DeleteEven though I completely disagree with America's growing dependency on drone warfare, I can understand why people feel it is necessary to use and why it might appeal to them. War takes its toll on every single person who participates in it, everyone who leaves it comes back scarred mentally and/or physically. After experiencing the effects of war either first hand or seeing its effect on the people around you, it is natural to want to avoid that feeling. To save people, and to save your country, without having to take on the full burden of combat would be ideal to most soldiers. But even though it is understandable for soldiers to feel this way, it does not mean that this is the right way to handle warfare. You can not sacrifice the morals and ethics we have preached as a country in an attempt to lighten the emotional burden on our soldier's and for their safety. Though the soldier's of our country's safety is without a doubt important, the safety of civilians, regardless if they are from our country or not, is just as important. The runners of the drones don't even know all the times what their targets are, but they shoot anyway. Bryant even acknowledged that their was a chance that those "weapons" those three men were holding in the first shot he ever took could have been shepherd's staff, acknowledging the fact that he could have possibly killed innocent men. Killing, instead of being utilized as a last resort in combat has now become the first instinct, the only choice, and the "better to be safe than sorry" policy is being used to extremes that are causing possibly innocent people to lose their lives. Drone warfare is being utilized more and more as an excuse for impulsive killing and to not think things through logically and meticulously as it should be when making a decision concerning someone else's lives. Drone warfare should only be used in emergency situations, and when there is little to no risk of miscalculations, it should not be treated as the only choice and definitely should not be treated any less carefully. Killing people is killing people, regardless of whether you're pushing a button or pulling a trigger. A different environment does not degrade from the severity of murder and death, and though drone warfare does have some benefits, it should be treated as a weapon and not as a game and therefore something to take lightly.
ReplyDeleteDrone strikes are a concept that more Americans need to know about. This article is great as it gives you a first-hand account of what happens through a young soldier. I believe most people don't care about innocent lives dying as long as it doesn't hurt them.
ReplyDeleteThis article really reminds me of vegetarianism. Most vegetarians chose to be what they are due to deep research of how animals are treated and killed in this world.Most people ignore the fact of how the meat they are eating is treated or killed. If more people chose to care or actually find out, I believe they would quit eating their juicy big mac or kobe beef from a cattle who was chained to a post.
I believe our mind likes to tell itself we are right in many situations or dulls the situation. If I do something wrong I always try to find a valid reason that makes it seem that too bad. " Oh I missed that three pointer since my arm was hit on the side." Rarely do you find people who say did something wrong and take full responsibility. For Bryant his mind was telling him what he was doing was not too bad because he was seeing it through a screen. it is the same feeling as watching a death in a movie or a show. our minds tell us to not feel too much emotion and say its just on a screen. But if we really saw death in real life would we just let it pass easy or would we feel mass emotion. It understandable that Bryant is now in pain due to guilt and the mass amount of deaths he caused. I believe it is not too much due to the visual aspect but the guilt and understanding aspect. Deep down when he lets his body understand that he killed REAL innocent lives and other terrorists lives, is when it really hits him hard.
Drone Strikes are a great way to save American Soldier's lives and are a great way to reach exclusively-hard areas. But, only if used right and with innocent lives not being killed. It is like Communism, it seems decent on paper but in reality its hard to achieve without all its negative faults. It was great shedding light on a subject that many people do not know about.
I really think that drone warfare is an awful idea. At the beginning of the article they were saying that the men behind the drone knew nothing about the people they were killing. They weren't even sure if the men were carrying weapons or not. Despite my feelings about it however, I do understand how it can be necessary in war. I think that it can help save the lives of many more Americans and help win wars. It also definitely helps to know that they are aware that they are killing real people and not just things on a screen. I think, though, that we need to keep in mind that using drone warfare takes away the realness of it. Even though they can still have grief and are suffering mentally, it is totally different than actual combat. I don't think that the drones are a good idea because the people behind them just follow whatever orders they are given without even a second thought. They aren't really thinking about what they're doing and the fact that these people have lives and families. I think that drone warfare should not be used all the time, just when absolutely needed and I think there should be a very good reason as to why they are killing people from behind a screen, in a box, miles away from where the killing is happening.
ReplyDeleteI do not think drone warfare should be part of our future as part of United States form of protection or warfare use. Since the men controlling the drone aren't actually in the field killing these seemingly harmful men,the commanders that are telling them to do this to these people don't understand the psychological aspect that comes with this job. The man in this article that was a guinea pig for this drones program as the laser shooter said the job had made him numb. This type of warfare can also cause mental disorders like PTSD and other problems that are caused by war even if they are not being hurt physically. The health of these Americans should also be taken into effect so they know exactly what they are getting into when they sign up for the job.
ReplyDeleteThese drones also seem to not be one hundred percent accurate or be hitting the right target. Since the men in charge of flying or being a shooter are not actually in control, but their higher ranked commanders are, if they are told to shoot targets, they must obey their orders. These orders could be very off base and the people they are told to shoot could be completely innocent, especially if they kill an animal, or worse, a child.
It'd be a shame in the United States were to use this technology and the army budget to invest in this type of warfare. It could risk others countries using these technology and using it against their own people or against us if in the future we enter into war with them. If this is the future of war, I fear for where America in headed in my life time.
I have a huge amount of respect for our soldiers who are choosing to make unimaginable sacrifices to defend our country and rights as well as citizens of other nations and their rights. However I do not hold in respect those who allow or command these soldiers to do anything but the bare minimum required to complete their main objective. If their job is to protect a town from the Taliban then the only ones who are harmed should be the members of the Taliban who are posing a threat to that town.
ReplyDeleteBryant's story solidified this view for me. He received commands to attack people when he had no definitive answer as to why. He is told, “'We’re gonna shoot and collapse the building. They’ve gotten intel that the guy is inside.' The drone crew received no further information, no details of who the target was or why he needed a Hellfire dropped on his roof." He is never told who was in the building or why a $95,000 bomb had to be dropped on him. I cannot imagine being ordered to just explode something and someone because another person told me to especially the time Bryant saw a figure run around the side of the building just before the Hellfire dropped.
For over two decades we have been sending and having our soldiers fight in the Middle East. We have lost so many soldiers and many more have suffered extreme casualties. What I am concerned about is the reactions of the Air Force fighters who are in the same position as Bryant. The woman that refused to continue, the man who would chug a bottle of whiskey after each kill, the fantasy of merging with the technology, all of it is scary. This can be torture and people don’t even know it is happening.
I had never heard of drone warfare in great detail until I read this article. I hope those who reacted to Bryant’s decision to speak out in a negative manner understand someday how hard it was for him to come out and tell that to the world. Posting on social media “I broke a [f-ing] nail on that last mission!” and “Maybe they should wear seatbelts” to poke fun at Bryant’s confession to the world is not only rude but reflects poorly back on the one who made the post. Bryant knows that what he does is different from what the soldiers overseas do but he also knows that what he does can be just as hard. He has to see the aftermath of his actions and it’s not a videogame. The bodies don’t just fade into the ground and poof, they’re gone.
The drones are a great idea for things like supervising forest fires or being eyes for soldiers on the ground but to use them in an offensive attack seems like a bad way to fight a war. If we had to put our soldiers on the ground and have them shoot at actual people up close and personal I guarantee countries would fight less, war would be uncommon, and people would opt for a peaceful solution. Drones do remove the soldiers from the fight. If we are looking to win just this war then we are on the right track, but if we want to change the world in a long term sense then we need to find a personal way to wage war (like locking the disagreeing leaders in a room together to argue it out… just saying).
Madison Florence
I've never had an especially good knowledge of modern day warfare or technology, so I found this article both interesting and slightly disturbing. After reading this article, I can't say that I'm necessarily against using drones; Bryant describes them as 'tools' that are useful when used responsibly. I think that we should use all of the tools that we can get our hands on to aid our soldiers and limit casualties, but as long as they are used in a way that is ethical and correct in the rules of war.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that I found the most surprising and disturbing about this article was how the soldiers almost turned into robots themselves as they progressed in controlling drones. It shocked me that Bryant turned from a soldier who worried about the possibility of killing a child into a killing machine, determined to take down any and all enemies. It's almost like brain wash; a complete somersault of morals, and that's why I think that drones are so controversial. Because the people that control them loose themselves in the war and do things that many human beings couldn't imagine doing.
Something that really surprised me about Bryant's experience after the war was the intense PTSD that he acquired afterwards. I found it very interesting that he went from killing with no worries to mentally scarred from the experience. At what point did he realize what he was doing? What caused his turning points?
In general, I really liked this article because I now feel like I have a better understanding of some of the modern day war technology that is being developed. It's very challenging for me to make up my mind, however, on whether or not drones should be used. I guess that I think they should be used; if you have it, you should use it, but only to a limit. Hopefully, someday soldiers who are controlling these drones will soon learn when to stop and when start.
Katie Gorsky
The turning point, according to the article, was his first shot -- the one that has been referenced several times above -- where the victim bleeds out and turns the same color as the landscape (although, I wonder if you would have an opportunity to watch that long. It's a very poetic description, all right, but. . . )
DeleteI also want to say that I'm impressed by all the different angles we have approached this article. Everyone makes some really, really interesting points for and against the use of drones and specifics as to when they should or shouldn't be used.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first heard of the Drones being used I thought that it would be similar to what you see in video games today. I thought that it wouldn’t feel as real as being on the ground and doing it face-to-face and as Bryant said it was “like playing Dungeons & Dragons.” But after reading Bryant’s story, I started to think differently. He says that it started off as a game between his squadron and that they’d get excited when there was a “blowingly awesome shot.” Then he went back and said that he became like a zombie in his job. He said that the “ambivalence” crept in on what he was really doing. Bryant tells the story about how he felt that in one particular mission he felt that a blur on the screen was a child and that he had had difficulty in firing that shot.
ReplyDeleteI can understand the hesitation in sharing these missions with the public. I feel like it’s not a definite or clear way of getting things done. While it may save the lives of soldiers that would have to put their boots on the ground, I think that with the drone there’s a gray area. When Bryant says that he was unsure of whether it was a child or a dog on screen, he still had to follow through. I don’t think that’s right at all. These drones are supposed to be used to “get the bad guys” without putting our men on the line, but what if you got the target wrong? What if there is an innocent child or bystander that happens to be nearby when the drone decides to strike? While there is great accuracy in this technology, there’s still room for error. Error that could be prevented if someone is there in person to see the difference between an innocent civilian and the enemy. I just think there’s too much room for error with drones, and I think it makes it too easy to kill someone. Killing someone should be easy or “like playing Dungeons and Dragons.” It should a difficult decision, and I think Drone warfare takes that aspect out of war.
Don’t get me wrong here. I have a lot of respect for those who serve our country and fight to keep America free. I don’t want them to have to go to Iraq or Afghanistan, but I don’t believe that this is the way to solve that problem. I believe this is just a different way of doing the things that soldiers mentally struggle over after returning from war.
Ashley Caron
In this case, the "child" rushes in after the missile has fired. There is a certain amount of time to abort, but after that, all you can do is watch.
DeleteI think it's important to note in this article that Bryant confesses immediately that his first kill is "burned into his memory like a photo negative". Reading a piece like this, it is very easy to only see the distressing effects of drone warfare, and to be horrified by the dehumanizations of those participating. But even after all this time, Bryant speaks of that first violent experience with a certain tone of disappointment and horror at his own actions. The cold, harsh terms in which he depicts watching the soldier fade into the same color as the ground is hardly aimed to paint himself in a good light, or provide any excuses for such harshness. That, I think, is the one saving quality of this article, that the general attitude of the account is not necessarily apologizing for the behavior of the Air Force, but it is recognizing the questionable (at best) morals of the situation. The concept of such physical and emotional distance can only serve as a disconnect from the natural qualms over the act of killing, but the fact that an article like this was even written, and built off of personal account, shows that hope isn't exactly lost.
ReplyDeleteThe mention of Bryant's past rings particularly true on this idea for me. He came into his position by chance, according to his account, and the details of his background serve to cement him as more than an inhumane murderer. Everyone involved, even in operations of the greatest atrocity, are people, with a conscience and back story. Even with the brutally honest point of view this article gives on new warfare techniques, it's those human details that interest, assure, and make me hope for a resolution in some sort of compromise.
I haven’t even finished reading the article and I already have the itch to voice my opinion even if only scratching the surface of the wealth of information about a United Stated of America I wasn't so aware of and am very proud of. Bryant considers leakers like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden heroes. Wait, what? I immediately googled “What makes a soldier a hero?” and found an article by Mike Gudgell from Veterans Day 2012, “Veterans Day: What Makes a Hero?”. Here Mike Gudgell defines warfare heroism as “self-sacrifice in the face of mortal danger”, and not only for the protection of our country but this article even focuses on our part in pulling the countries of the Middle East “ out of an orgy of violence.” The idea is self-sacrificing for the protection of our own freedom while helping those in desperate need of this same freedom we often take for granted. We have grown perhaps too comfortable and too accepting that this is what makes a military hero. Never did I think a definition of such a powerful and important role could change so drastically. According to Brandon Bryant members of the US Air Force are now heroes when willing to sacrifice themselves for their principles. But Bryant is not referring soldiers making sacrifices from time with family to possibly their lives for their belief in their duty to serve his country. He is talking about leaking government secret because it turns out nowadays what our country asks of our soldiers is far from heroic and cannot be classified under what a soldier considers their obligation to their country. Can that be right? Our country doesn't have our soldiers protecting and helping but weighing and debating their sense of duty versus their morals (for a soldier shouldn't those two go together like peanut butter and jelly). Then the author of this, Matthew Power shares a disturbing fact, “Most Americans—61 percent in the latest Pew survey—support the idea of military drones, a projection of American power that won’t risk American lives.” I didn't think or at least I didn't like to think that our military was about a projection of power but about fighting for our own freedom and doing all we can to help those who face violence that denies them human rights. I almost don’t want to continue reading, I’m afraid I’ll only continue to be disappointed and sickened with the actions of our modern military and the integrity of our country.
ReplyDelete“I kind of finished the night numb,” Bryant says. “Then you just go home. No one talked about it. No one talked about how they felt after anything. It was like an unspoken agreement that you wouldn’t talk about your experiences.”
ReplyDeleteThese lines were some of the hardest for me to read. Drone warfare isn’t just allowing us to more easily kill the enemy but permanently scar and damage our own soldiers without even shipping them overseas.Are we really saving lives with these tactics? I think that I would rather risk dying then sit and watch a US Humvee explode severely injuring and killing soldiers then be blamed for it despite being halfway across the world. We usually only see deaths on monitors in movies and television programs. Any real deaths discussed on news are accompanied not by pictures of the dead bodies but the people when happy and living. In those desert boxes its real not animated with a reset button as in video games so we’ll never be able to understand what it’s like. So how are we going to help these soldiers when they suffer from PTSD as Bryant and his colleagues do? As Matthew Power says, “The mechanisms of death may change—as intimate as a bayonet or as removed as a Hellfire—but the bloody facts, and their weight on the human conscience, remain the same.” I am related to a WWI German soldier who suffered with injuries from mustard gas, when he was able to return home he ended up committing suicide because no one understood his experience was willing to talk about it. It is 2013 and the world is still facing the same issues and its infuriating. Soldiers fight so hard to stay alive and end up wishing to be dead. So we create technologies that eliminate their fight to stay alive still choosing as always to avoid psychological damage killing causes. We cause so much destruction and don’t even really take responsibility even for the lives of our own that are destroyed.
It's all part of the price we pay for going to war. It's up to each of us to decide if it's worth it. So we need to be informed. (And remember, this is just one article. Others might tell a very different story.)
DeleteThe thing that stood out to me most upon reading this article was the first little description at the top of the page. Right under the title of the article it says:
ReplyDelete"He was an experiment, really. One of the first recruits for a new kind of warfare in which men and machines merge. He flew multiple missions, but he never left his computer. He hunted top terrorists, saved lives, but always from afar. He stalked and killed countless people, but could not always tell you precisely what he was hitting. Meet the 21st-century American killing machine. who's still utterly, terrifyingly human."
Reading this description made my hair stand on end. It says that he was an experiment. One of the first drone pilots ever. I think that this gives him something to stand on. Maybe he didn't really know what it would be like. Maybe he didn't know what he was getting himself into. However, he did continue in this position even after his first kill. But he also saved lives. Like the article says- he hunted down terrorists. He never saw their faces in person yet he still stopped them. This topic really causes me some confusion. In some ways it does help save our own's lives, but are we protecting their minds? I don't see how something this intense couldn't cause some permanent damage in the thoughts of our soldiers.
I'm sure they'll get better at protecting minds. As I said above, the easiest way would be to find those less susceptible to this kind of distress.
DeleteI think warfare is warfare and the psychological ramifications are going to be there either way. I really like what Bryant’s mother had to say: “She just was like, ‘Everything will be okay,’ and I told her I killed someone, I killed people, and I don’t feel good about it. And she’s like, ‘Good, that’s how it should feel, you should never not feel that way.’ ”. People are so insensitive to assume that drone warfare has less of a moral impact than actual combat. Like the article stated, the cause and effect is still there. From the computer screen, Bryant watched as people carried about their daily lives. He saw them as actual people with actual lives, not just characters in a video game. As a drone warrior, Bryant experienced much more of the war than most people really understood.
ReplyDeleteDrone warfare is safer than actual combat though, and it does save lives. I found it really messed up, however, that the drone warriors didn’t even know who they were killing half the time. There seemed to be very poor communication between them and whoever gave them orders to kill. I also think drone warfare should only be used for specific cases when they are absolutely needed, and should be done more carefully (if that’s even possible). Many missions seemed to have been carried out a bit recklessly due to the fact that they no longer had to worry about the safety of American lives. Example-“He was told that they were carrying rifles on their shoulders, but for all he knew, they were shepherd’s staffs. Still, the directive from somewhere above, a mysterious chain of command that led straight to his headset, was clear: confirmed weapons.”
As I finished this article I went through multiple emotions from anger, confusion, sympathy, and disappointment. Unlike Mr. Mac I am not pure pacifist I understand that these drones have saved thousands of soldiers, that these machines have saved the United States from harm. When I think about the good things then of course I feel grateful that humans are intelligent enough to create these killing machines. However when I think about the complicated, the grey matter of all subjects confusion starts to creep in to my conscience. Is it really fair to kill these people, humans like us when they have no standing chance against these machines. They do not even realize that a person miles away have their lives in the palm of their hands. That these strangers have the power to destroy a whole village of people by pressing a couple of buttons. This leads me down a path of moral and ethical questions and that truly is troublesome on one's mind. After confusion I felt anger. I was angry that soldiers that Americans look up to and honor, literally sit in boredom calculating the number of farts a cockpit was likely to have absorbed, sleeping, and reading science fictional novels waiting for the word to blow up another person no questions asked. I was angry that Bryant took someone elses life for granted and comes into work by saying "What motherfucker's gonna die today" Immediately following anger was disappointment in the soldiers that I honored so much because of what they do for our country. I was disappointed that these soldiers would act like this. I was also extremely disappointed that other fellow soldiers would insult Bryant's diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder because he does not point guns to people and shoot them directly. When I finished the article all I felt was sympathy. Sympathy for the man who went trough hell for making the United States safer. Sympathy for the man who received a string of insults, death threats for gathering his courage to enlighten the world of what it is really like in this aspect of war. In the end I was so grateful for Byrant for doing all of this, enduring, and persevering to be able to tell this story of his life.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article I certainly had my opinions changed about drone warfare.
I have utmost respect for the soldiers that fight for our country. They sacrifice so much to defend us, and expect little in return. I admit, I am not a complete pacifist. I see myself as a realist; someone desires complete peace, but knows it is almost impossible. However, I believe the drone warrior article opened my eyes to the true horrors of war. Technology is rapidly changing, and bringing life-changing advances some may never thought possible. I believe that drones help us save the lives of our precious soldiers. I’m not saying that the physiological ramifications are minimized in any way, but I think it is much safer for our soldiers. Using drone warriors should not be about one’s personal opinion on war, but the logical reasons for using them. Drone warfare should be used to save the lives of our soldiers. Nothing about warfare is pretty, but saving lives is. As much as I empathize with the innocent civilian deaths, I realize that this happens with our without drones. I believe that the technology of drone warfare is meant to help our soldiers, not hurt them.
ReplyDeleteWell done, Class. Many thoughtful responses here. It seems like, though, that despite our reservations, we're somewhat above even the 61% of the country that approves of drone warfare.
ReplyDelete