Libya conflict: Nato loses drone helicopter

[Bosonic]

Source: BBC

Nato has lost a helicopter drone involved in the Libyan campaign, a Nato spokesman has said.

Wing Cmdr Mike Bracken said the aircraft had lost contact with radar at Nato's command centre at 0720 GMT.

The helicopter was carrying out reconnaissance over Libya "to monitor Gaddafi's forces threatening the civilian population", he said.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13858200

[midnight]

1. Ooops.

[bongbong]

2. Fixed for accuracy

The helicopter was carrying out reconnaissance over Libya "to monitor Gaddafi's forces threatening the civilian population oil company profits", he said.

Operation Independent Libya (O.I.L.) continues.

[FLPanhandle]

3. This is why drones are are valuable.

No US pilot was lost with the aircraft.

People always seem to freak out with the concept of drones which I never understood. Why be pissed off about where the pilot sits? Remotely piloted aircraft are much safer for our people.

[Ash_F]

4. The more you are removed from the crime, the easier it is to commit it.

I would say refusing the African Union proposed, UN monitored election and putting in place an unelected "National Transitional Council" lead by an oil baron is a pretty huge crime. Against liberty, against democracy and against human rights.

I doubt most Americans(and most of the soldiers involved) understand what is going on and what they are taking part in.

[harmonicon]

5. You said it better than I would have. Thanks. nt.

[FLPanhandle]

6. The flaw is thinking that flights with humans in them wouldn't happen

History says we aren't going to let people dying or being captured stop air campaigns.

The people issuing the orders were never close to the action in the first place. It's always been remote for them.

The people following the orders are the ones who've always been in danger.

[Ash_F]

10. I agree with that.

I just wanted to give my take the human aversion too drones. I guess the legitimacy of the new Libyan government was off-topic from your post.
Edit - There is nothing wrong with better tools, it is how you use them. Some tools by their nature are easier to misuse. But regardless, your actions should be just.

[joshcryer]

8. Would you have said the same of Mubarak or Ben Ali? Should not the people want their tyrant...

...replaced?

Really now. Would you have said that Mubarak deserved elections?

Because that was his original proposal.

[Ash_F]

11. That is a whole different country and a different situation. But no I was not a Mubarak supporter.

I will say that I believe that people should be able elect their government. Be they rich or poor, weak or powerful. Wealthy and powerful people from other countries should not be able to select the leadership through backroom deals with their own wealthy and powerful politicians.

That is fundamental to the concept of liberty.

[joshcryer]

7. I hate them because they make war even more of a videogame. Look at RoE in Afghanistan...

...and Pakistan. It's just abysmal. Some asshole drinking coffee and eating donuts probably not even paying attention while a kid just out of school is doing the piloting.

Yes it is a saved pilot in this instance (lord knows what would've happened to a pilot downed in Gaddafi territory). But already NATO is showing poor judgment as this thing draws out.

[FLPanhandle]

9. It's already like a video game though.

Technology has changed the world including military weapons.

In both cases a pilot is viewing a video screen and in both cases the pilot pushes a button to launch a missile. I don't see a lot of moral difference if the pilot viewing the screen is 20,000 ft away or 2,000 miles away. It's the same screen and the same missile. Just in one case the pilot is a lot safer.

[KoKo]

12. Reporter Eugene Robinson...Quote: "Or, is it really just slaugter?"

"And there’s a moral question to consider. The advent of robotic drone aircraft makes it easier to wage war without suffering casualties. But without risk, can military action even be called war? Or is it really just slaughter?

An intellectual president such as Obama should be able to lead a search for answers to these tough questions. As soon as he gets a better grasp on the definition of “hostilities.”"

--------------

Obama Is Wrong on War Powers

Posted on Jun 21, 2011
By Eugene Robinson

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/obama_is_wrong_on_war_powers_20110621

[FLPanhandle]

13. I'm sure the same question has been asked throughout history

Probably when archers first killed people at a distance instead of using traditional hand to hand combat, then when guns allowed people to kill across longer distances, then when cannon and artillery were first used and killing could be done miles away, then when the first airplane dropped a bomb, and now, yet again, when remotely piloted aircraft make attacks.

I'm also sure when we can fire a laser from orbiting satellites or some other future technology people will ask that question again while hearkening back to the "good old days" of using drones.

[Xithras]

17. The problem, of course....

...is that many of these drones are controlled remotely from within the U.S., making these support facilities legitimate military targets. It's one thing when our soldiers march off to war "over there", but now they're fighting those wars up the street. At some point our enemies are going to figure that out.

So, what happens to the poor schmuck in Las Vegas who happens to have the ill luck to live downstairs from a drone pilot, when one of our "enemies" decides to start taking out our UAV strike capability by killing off our pilots (note that under the rules of warfare and international law, killing enemy soldiers is perfectly legal...even when those soldiers are nowhere near the battlefield). That bomb is going to kill the pilot. His neighbors and kids will just be acceptable casualties...the collateral damage associated with modern warfare. We'll have war dead in the Vegas suburbs.

They're bringing these wars home. Eventually that's going to start biting us in a big way. Missile attacks against American cities hosting remote warfare support resources. Targeted attacks on American soil against the military and civilian employees who make the equipment work. It's not a matter of "if". As we continue to make our wars remotely operated, our "enemies" will be forced to either strike us on our own soil, or to simply surrender. And people don't like surrendering.

[FLPanhandle]

19. Logically, what's the difference if you live next to drone pilot or a fighter pilot

Neither is operating from home. One from a military installation (which in war has always been a target), one from an airbase (either overseas or long range operations from here).

Drone's don't increase the threat of attack on U.S. cities. If an enemy is capable of hitting us or our pilots (regardless of which type) and wants to, then they will.

That argument doesn't make sense. The drone pilot isn't operating from his personal residence anymore than the fighter pilot is.

[Xithras]

20. You're missing something.

Soldiers don't punch timecards. War doesn't end just because the workday is over.

If a soldier puts in his UAV time on base, machinegunning him to death in his car while he's off duty, as he drives to Chucky Cheese with his kids in his back seat, is perfectly legal under international law. A soldier engaged in combat activities is a legitimate target anywhere on Earth, at any time of the day or night. On base or off.

These types of attacks didn't make much sense historically, because it made more sense to attack the bulk of our combat resources overseas. As we move into UAV-centric warfare, attacking the stateside resources not only becomes more important, but may become the ONLY way these countries can stop these attacks.

If you're talking about a base like Creech, most of the pilots live off base, and virtually all of the support personell live off base, so it would make strategic sense to strike them off base where a military-grade response will be slower in coming. Think about the kind of damage that 40 well armed Libyans could do in Vegas with a list of home addresses of the pilots and support technicians working out of the nearby UAV base. The Las Vegas PD would be slaughtered if they tried to oppose a well trained military force, so any real response would be delayed until soldiers from the nearest base could be moved in. How long would that take? An hour? How many people could they kill in that time.

It'll happen. Sooner or later. It's a common sense reaction to these kinds of attacks.

[FLPanhandle]

22. If they could do that to drone pilots, why wouldn't they do it to regular pilots

We operate long range bombing missions from the states and rotate fighter pilots in/out of theaters of war constantly.

Also, the drones themselves are still based overseas with large support staff and facilities (just like before) so it's not the "ONLY way to stop the attacks". In fact, identifying which person in a city is a drone pilot would be difficult and it if possible, it would make more sense to make a personal attack on a high ranking person.

Drones don't change things that much. They are just new so people react like they do with every new thing, overreact.

[Spider Jerusalem]

33. Legitimate military targets...

for any enemy with the capability to attack them. When is the last time the US fought a war against anyone capable of attacking the North American mainland? (The answer to that question would be Japan or the Soviet Union depending on how you reckon "fighting" and "war".)

[Nihil]

14. I bet the pilot would have learned a lesson though ...

> lord knows what would've happened to a pilot downed in Gaddafi territory

... the lesson being "the people you've been bombing don't enjoy it".

As it is, the drones flying the drones bugger off home for a beer whilst
the relatives of the victims are still scraping up the remains.

:grr:

[FLPanhandle]

16. Because obviously the pilot is one who needs to "learn that lesson".

IMHO, the only people that need to "learn a lesson" are the politicians who actually start wars and the military command who make the plans and issue the orders. Of course, they are never in harms way to begin with.

[Nihil]

18. Yes, he is one who needs to learn - just not the only one.

I totally agree that the politicians, the military command, the corporate
arms-dealers and the jingoistic "support the troops from my chair" jerks
all need to learn the lesson but the pilot is in no way excused for his
action ... "just following orders" has been a shit excuse for decades ...

:shrug:

[Enrique]

21. it's the way they're used

we are waging real war with all these countries and people don't really realize it.

[FLPanhandle]

24. We are also flying piloted planes over there

If people don't realize it, then they never will and it's not because of Drones. It's because of the media.

[Enrique]

26. but not in Pakistan and Yemen

in addition to waging these wars, we are also assassinating people with the drones. Another thing I think people aren't aware of. There was some controversy over the bin Laden raid, but what about all the other people we have been targeting to be offed?

[FLPanhandle]

28. Does it make it better to target people with helicopters, airplanes, or cruise missiles?

I just don't understand all the angst over a remotely piloted aircraft vs. a traditionally piloted aircraft or a cruise missile.

People say it makes war more likely, but I've never seen us hesitate to enter wars to date. Hell, if we can wander into Iraq on the flimsily reasoning we had while incurring deaths, and start flying into Libya at the drop of a hat, then it's hard to get make war more likely.

The arguments over drones has been more emotional vs. logical.

[Arctic Dave]

23. What is does do is justifies targeting the US.

If we use drones over their, don't get angry when they kill people over here.

[FLPanhandle]

25. and flying piloted planes doesn't?

They don't get mad at us if we use piloted aircraft? They don't want to attack U.S. air force bases/aircraft/pilots unless we use drones? That's silly.

[Arctic Dave]

27. Locatoin of pilots matter.

Like I said, don't get angry when the local Olive Garden goes up instead of an operating base because they are targeting drone pilots.

[FLPanhandle]

29. You think if they could, they wouldn't do the same for traditional pilots?

That's where your logic fails.

[Arctic Dave]

30. Traditional pilots are usually in theater, not at the theatre.

Does the term soft target mean anything to you? What is more difficult, offing someone on a fortified base or taking them out at the grocery store?

[FLPanhandle]

31. You assert that they can hit our military here yet CHOOSE not to.

And you assert they choose not to strike at the military in US cities because we are killing them with piloted aircraft and cruise missiles instead of remotely piloted aircraft. Nice of them to hold back like that.

I find that assertion lacking in proof and dubious at best.

[hugo_from_TN]

32. Our defenses need to able to prevent them from hitting us at home.

So far, they've done a pretty damn good job of it. If Khaddifi thinks he can start killing drone pilots in the US he will do it whether or not it is 'justified'. He can't and so he won't.

[saras]

34. That's exactly the problem

Drones make it much easier to do stuff we shouldn't be doing, while having little effect of consequence on any legitimate defensive goals.

[David__77]

15. Good news.

I hope no Libyans were injured when the thing went down.