Drones, and the Alien Abduction of Michelle Obama

My uncle makes weapons. Crazy weapons. Sometimes I think he's pulling my leg, and other times I'm not so sure. Sometimes it seems crazy enough to work. Here is one of those stories:

According to my uncle, there is exists the capability to link certain types of missiles, or in other cases, UAVs (unmanned arial vehicles) together such that one remote location can control multiple units. These drones can shoot a missile into a window-sized hole from several miles away. These are the drones you've heard about on the news, and the ones that have everyone running scared. But from what I've been told, the unmanned missiles don't necessarily have to even see a window to find a target. Granted there are other obvious ways around visual obstructions such as heat vision and what have you. It's the what-have-you's that peak my interest. The system my uncle told me about was an audio based system. It's actually pretty cool. Each missile (or maybe it's a drone, who knows) is equipped with a highly sensitive microphone that listens to things happening on the ground. More specifically, these microphones are programmed to listen for the sounds of engines and the sounds those engines make on various terrain. For example, the person on the computer could say, "I'm looking for a six-cylinder truck or SUV driving on sand." The program then scans the area the UAV is in and reports back, "Okay, there are two in this area, one here, and another one there." Or if you wanted, you could ask, "I'm looking for a tank engine on pavement." It would then not only report back locations X, Y and Z, but it would store and track that information as you made your next decision. Now, say you have about thirty of these things flying around, all networked together. You could then say, I want ten missiles on X, five on Y, five on Z, and the rest can stay in observance for anything else that might come try to help. Bombs away.

Leaving President Obama's new drone policy at the door for the moment, let's take a look at the ethical ramifications of just that scenario previously described. What we have is one man, or maybe a small team of CIA operatives in Virginia, God knows how many miles away from the actual target, unleashing a technical storm of doom upon some enemy combatants armed with Jeeps and rifles from the 1960's. Notice how we call these people enemy combatants, instead of combatants of war in our war on terror? The late Bill Hicks had a comment on this. Mr. Hicks would say that to have a war, "You need two armies. Two. See the difference?" A situation like this can't really be called a battlefield, because there is no real battle. In one minute, there are some very angry non-Americans, and the next minute there are none. A battle implies a fight takes place.

Let's examine the benefits of this kind of weaponry. Clearly, it gives us the upper hand in any sort of military conflict. Superior firepower was never anything to scoff at. It keeps soldiers from battle, and they stay relatively safe. A UAV is much lighter and more efficient to fly than a piloted aircraft. You also don't have to train an expensive, error prone, heavy pilot. If one gets shot down, there is no letter sent home, and no tears shed. These drones can be used for information gathering without risking the lives of pilots, and there are other non-military uses for them as well. Most of them are security involved, but geophysical surveys are generally conducted by drones these days.

I'm going to put on my utilitarian cap for a moment for this next part. Using UAVs reduces the number of civilian casualties in combat. The reports suggest that in certain, more unfortunate drone strikes, many more civilians are killed than enemy combatants. Some studies suggest that the ratio is 10 to 1, another suggests that two thirds killed are enemy combatants. Recently, there was a drone strike in Pakistan that led to the death of eight German tourists. This figure, while tragic, should be taken in perspective of older conventional weaponry used in the 20th century. During World War 2, if an army thought a person of interest was in a specific town, they would bomb and burn down the entire town. If we take a look at the German blitz, or the firebombing of Dresden, we see a much different strategy. In lack of accuracy, go for surface area. Burn the whole thing. The firebombing of Dresden resulted in twenty-five thousand deaths according to official reports, although some German studies reported figures between one and two hundred thousand casualties, mostly civilian. There is something to be said for the fact that we can at least now contain the destructive power of our weaponry to say a building or two.

The usage of drones removes us from combat, not only physically, but mentally as well. People controlling these drones probably won't go through some of the mental anguish that our Vietnam veterans suffered. If instead of having to walk into a complex and plant explosives, or murder everyone inside, you can do it from behind a screen with a little crosshair, you're essentially just playing Call of Duty. Although terrifying to say it, a child could do it. This can be seen as a good thing, or a bad thing. It trivializes the death of another human being by framing it in the same way a child plays Resident Evil. In the old wars, if you shot or stabbed a man, he was right there in front of you as he bled to death. Soldiers had to walk through the destruction they caused. They had to smell rotting flesh. They had to dig graves. Looking at those same people as glowing infared splotches in a crosshair, and then incinerating them with a hellfire missile removes this aspect of combat. Again, is this a good thing or a bad thing? Does this make killing too easy? Does it remove, or perhaps heavily dampen, the consequence of guilt a human being SHOULD feel from having taken a life?

In moving our military capabilities more towards UAVs, we stop making war or combat a matter of us vs. them. It is about choosing who is next to die. It is no longer a question of self-defense, because there is no risk of personal harm to the remote pilot in Langley. There isn't even a real risk of harm to the drone. From four miles up and flying at hundreds of miles an hour, no firearm could feasibly hit a passing drone. If you recall the scenario presented at the beginning, these systems can listen for tank engines on gravel, sand, jungle growth etc. An enemy tank in the Middle East poses no threat to American soil. Yes, technically our bases and embassies could be at risk, but would that logic not also grant a foreign nation the right to send a missile of their own at an American armed force for being near their embassy?

The problem facing us as the American public is that there are so many unanswered,and some unanswerable questions.

If we have the technological and espionage based know-how to build strong cases against enemies; enough information to prove a person guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt; enough information to forgo a fair trial and jump straight to the execution. If we have the ability to locate these people and track them half-way across the world - Do we need to kill them? Is the information at hand not enough? If we know who they are, where they are, down to the room in which they are staying, how much of a threat do they really pose? (The guy hiding in a cave doesn't seem to stand much of a chance against an army of flying death robots. Some might argue that they purport dangerous and extreme, radical ideas. They may argue this, but are doing so in defense of a nation that believes in the freedom of speech.)

These questions would not be considered valid to anyone charged with defending the nation because they could not test these propositions without inviting the potential perceived risk of harm to our country. It is the position taken by the FBI when they attack home-grown terrorists. If you are unfamiliar with these situations I will provide you a brief rundown. Basically, an undercover agent will approach a person suspected of being radical, or prone to undertake terrorist activities. The agent, disguised as a fellow militant, will offer to provide the suspect with money and equipment to pull out a terrorist attack. They will make up a fake plan to blow up a building, and then the agent will hand the suspect a cell phone and saying something to the effect of, "if you dial three and press send, the bomb will go off." When the suspect presses the button, another FBI agent answers on the other line and arrests the suspect. There have been controversies over this tactic being entrapment. However, like the question posed above, whether or not the suspect would or wouldn't have actually carried out a terrorist plot, whether or not they posed a real threat to Americans living in America, a person charged with the defense of a nation can't really take that risk.

But there are other issues regarding the lives of truly innocent people who happen to coincidentally be around truly dangerous militants. Bystanders. How are civilians of a nation in conflict to know if they are in a military state, or a danger zone, if there are no more soldiers on the ground? With soldiers on the ground, they would at least know they were on lockdown, and that they were being scrutinized. If a drone were about to strike, would there be soldiers on the ground trying to clear civilizans from the area, or would that be considered a compromise of the mission at hand? I find it highly unlikely that moments before a hellfire missile comes flying through the window, Barack Obama calls the terrorist up and says, "Now let me be clear, I have a drone flying overhead. If I say Oxford Tango Yellow Three, under the powers granted to me by the executive branch, you will cease to exist. Surrender and you will live as a prisoner of war under the conditions of the Geneva Convention, please and thank you." I find it more likely that there is a list of targets, a cavalcade of eyes on the floor identifying and locating those on the list, and then a very bright light, a loud kaboom, and the feint smell of burning jerky.

Here is a distinction. America was more or less okay with the atomic bomb, a much more devestating weapon, because we trusted our government to do the right thing, and to never use it without dire need and a good cause. In that utilitarian sense, we did it to end the war quickly. It was a time where people still believed in the idea of rallying together for a great cause like democracy and freedom. Today, we have such little faith in government. Not only do UAVs represent a terrifying next step in military capabilities, but it also signifies the ever expanding reach of espionage equipment. It's not just that these things can evaporate us from miles away, but that they can watch, listen and evaporate us all at once. The atom bomb was pure death. Where it went, people died. A drone evaluates its target first. It tells the world that by its judgment of your nationality and political values, you may or may not have the right to live in the land of the free. The atomic bomb gave us assurance that conflict was near an end. The drone feeds into the paranoia that it will never end.

Let's take that utilitarian cap off now. The weaponized UAV makes a wrong choice easier to make. Killing is wrong. If these terrorist cells are the criminals our government says they are, then according to the foundations of our own justice system, not only does the burden of proof lay on the prosecution, but that the criminal is entitled to a fair trial. We are denying a trial for these individuals. Now, it is completely understandable that these are supposedly dangerous people who would not be taken to court willingly, and capture may not be an option. Its understandable that some Americans have different role models and heroes than other Americans. Some like Bruce Willis. Some like action movies. However, Clint Eastwood is not everyone's role model. Some do not look up to Steven Segal. The individuals some see as role models were those who made change through non-violent measures, and died asserting those non-violent measures. Martin Luther King Jr., John Lennon, Ghandi were cool absolutely, but Jesus was basically an X-man. Jesus had superpowers. They may have died, but they made lasting change. George Bush is still alive, and Muslim extremists still hate us a whole lot.

In regards to President Obama's drone policy, it isn't a matter of him misinforming the public to pass the Patiot Act. It is a matter of the administration choosing to not inform the public at all. Let's not get bogged down in trying to decide which is worse, because they are both deontologically inexcusable. A lie of omission is a lie. A lie is a lie. Killing people is killing people.

Funny thing: With just a touch of mental jiujitsu, Barack Obama technically has the right to hellfire missile any employee of HSBC. How? Well, the Patriot Act would absolutely classify a person embezzling money for terrorists as an enemy combatant. Barack Obama can hellfire missile an enemy combatant. HSBC embezzled money for terrorists. Barack Obama can technically hellfire missile employees of HSBC. Don't worry, I'm sure they'll be just fine. This is of course all just fun with the transitive property of equality. You know: Math.

It just doesn't seem logically viable that you could create peace through violence, no matter how contained that violence is. We could get the the technological point where we release a robotic bee, it flies into Afghanistan and drills its way into a terrorists head, but there will still be conflict. There will still be outrage.

Imagine if you will, that incredibly advanced aliens invade the United States. They have lasers that outmatch any weapon we have. They can disarm our weapons from space. They claim to be here in our best interest, but come armed. Their beloved leader says to us, "Americans are using too much oil, and the planet cannot be sustained. We are here to liberate you from your addiction. If you use oil in any way, we will kill you because you are an agent of eco-terrorism. To make an example, and to show you that we see you as all equal, we will now hang Michelle Obama for using too much aerosol based sprays and hair straightener." Elmo would strap himself to a C4 jacket and jihad those alien bastards. If another entity were to come to America and said there was something fundamentally wrong with the way our society functioned, aka the car, we would be incredibly resistant to that idea. Even if the aliens used a good set of values to justify killing the first lady, the act of violence would invalidate any rhetorical argument that organization of aliens would set forth. We would only rememeber the violence.