Griffon said:
Giving machines the autonomy to kill
And who has done that?
Griffon said:
Taking the pilot out of the aircraft and placing him at a control centre may also do something similar.
You think?
Why?
The difference between sitting in a bomber at 20,000 feet and releasing a GPS-guided bomb and sitting in a Ground Control Station (GCS) is what, exactly? Besides the increased dignity of waste elimination in the latter case, that is. The author of the article has that precisely correct.
Nobody is doing the whites-of-their-eyes strafing run thing anymore.
Griffon said:
But there's also another side: the stresses of war and taking lives have also been shown to impact drone pilots much the same as they affect their in-aircraft counterparts.
I was never a "drone" pilot, for one. There is no such thing.
I was a UAV Mission Commander.
A "drone" is a type of UAV that is programmed before flight. The machines being discussed are another sub-species: the Remotely-Piloted Vehicle or, preferably, the Remotely-Piloted Aircraft. True "drones" are rather useless these days.
I felt no such stresses.
I've seen no indication that any of my "in-aircraft counterparts" felt them, either.
Griffon said:
However, the pilots in-theatre are always surrounded by co-workers going through the same experiences, and when they leave theatre after their tour they are removed from the environment where they experienced that stress.
Everybody is "surrounded" by "co-workers going through the same experiences", unless they are in complete isolation.
Griffon said:
When a drone pilot goes to work, he or she goes to work in the evening (daytime in theatre),
Yeah?
There are no set hours. For long missions, there are shifts. I was in theatre, and went in early in the morning, early in the evening, late at night, or at whatever time was required for the mission that we were running.
We tended to avoid late morning to late afternoon, though, because performance during the launch phase sucked at those times, due to the heat.
Kind of the opposite of your claim, actually.
We could launch under hot conditions, if necessary, but only at the cost of fuel and, hence, endurance.
Griffon said:
They don't have the support and understanding of their peers around them like they would in-theatre.
Why not?
Griffon said:
And when the operation is over, they are still in the same environment where they incurred the combat stress.
Which would be the same environment to which the guy in theatre returns once his tour is over.
And the guys in theatre are also "still in the same environment where they incurred the combat stress".
The difference, again, is what? I'm not seeing it.
Griffon said:
If you deploy the drone pilots to the operational theatre, then the effects on the drone pilots would probably be something similar to those on in-aircraft pilots;
Which, in my experience and observation, was negligible, if it existed at all.
Anyway, sorry, I'm probably missing something. You were operating what, Heron? Sperwer? Scan Eagle?
Griffon said:
This is the only thing that you said with which I agree.
Griffon said:
But having a bunch of un-manned aircraft flying around in-theatre, picking off other human beings with no risk to those that are operating them? That's akin, IMHO, to dropping a nuke and walking away.
And what, under the appropriate circumstances, would be wrong with "dropping a nuke and walking away"?
What about gunners firing 155 mm projectiles at a target 30 k distant? The risk to them was...
Griffon said:
Keep the pilot in the aircraft. They know the risks, and have accepted them in joining. I know I have.
Good idea.
And let's eliminate all of the other risk-reduction measures too, then.
No more helmets, ballistic vests and eyewear, ejection seats...
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." George S Patton understood more about war than you. The object of war is to win. Any other object is ridiculous. Failing to take advantage of any means to achieve the object is idiotic.
I have been accepting risks for a few decades now. I'll not accept stupid and unnecessary ones, however. Apparently, you have yet to learn that.
Modern UAVs have their place above the battlefield. There is no logical argument against that. Aside from any risk-reduction, perceived or real (we lost how many aircrew members in Afghanistan?), there is the distinct advantage of lengthy missions, allowing more coverage than manned aircraft can provide. I had the luxury of being able to watch potential targets for an hour or three in order to ensure that they were valid or not, all while sipping my tea and munching Spunkmeyers.
There is a fair number of innocent people still alive precisely because I could take that time, and be absolutely certain.
I had more than enough responsibility over life and death, but never felt any stress about it, because I could be sure.