|This article may contain material from Wikipedia|
An article on this subject has been redirected
to another page on WP:
Current versions of the GNU FDL article on Wikipedia may contain information useful to the improvement of this article
- Wikipedia: proposed merge to Wikipedia:Unmanned combat aerial vehicle
Drones are called UCAV by the military. Instead of following their guidelines about naming articles after the most common English or US nomenclature, Wikipedia follows the military naming, presumably to divert web surfers with Google searches away from the facts about these unusually immoral weapons and the thinly concealed criminality of their use.
Inside the US, about half the population opposes drone attacks. Everywhere else in the world, the majority of people do not support them. Drones ignore completely Presumption of innnocence, the Wikipedia:Geneva Conventions on rules of war, the United Nations Resolution 3314 against military action, and literally hundreds of other fundamental legal provisions. They increase fear of the US amongst target populations, but also resistance to it. But that is part of the point. As part of the middle to late stage of the Wars on Equality, the fostering of a convenient enemy (freedom fighters and partisans around the globe, described as terrorists) allows the US to engage in perpetual warfare and any illegal war action, occupation, or economic theft has a justification. Drones are easy to use and have the reputation of being high technology, making them easier to support among those with a vested interest in doing so, including those that would otherwise feel uncomfortable with the idea of a wrong in the world that required redress. Their use removes from warfare many of the historical sources of opposition to war. One is the loss of soldiers' lives, which is a detriment that was quickly devolved into "support for the troops". Concentrating on soldiers was a focus for anti-war sentiment which was more convenient than opposition to the military-industrial complex, politicians that profited from war, or the military hierarchy. Requiring that citizens pay homage to soldiers is only a short distance away from requiring that they be patriotic, or requiring that they support any ills of the country. Drones can give the illusion of press coverage. But there is no way for a reporter to embed themselves into a drone unit.
In February 2013, Wikipedia:Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind poll conducted a study to measure U.S. public opinion on the use of drones. The study was conducted nationwide, and it asked registered voters whether they "approve or disapprove of the U.S. Military using drones to carry out attacks abroad on people and other targets deemed a threat to the U.S.?" The results showed that three in every four (75%) of voters approved of the U.S. Military using drones to carry out attacks, while (13%) disapproved.
Another poll in February 2013 conducted by the Huffington Post was more equivocal: 56% of Americans support using drones to kill "high-level terrorists," 13% support using drones to kill "anyone associated with terrorists," 16% thought no one should be killed with drones, and 15% were not sure.
Outside America, support for drones is far lower. A Pew Research study of 20 countries in 2012 found widespread international opposition to US drone killings. One reason for this is that there is a shortage of media coverage for drone strikes and the procedure involved with them. This can cause a sense of unease pertaining to the use of drones. The web aggregator blog Wikipedia:3 Quarks Daily in partnership with the Netherlands based Dialogue Advisory Group hosted a symposium on drone attacks in 2013.
Public opinion in Europe increasingly approves UCAV use with non or less lethal weaponry incapacitating and herding enemy combatants.
There are a number of critics of the increasing use of UAVs to track and kill terrorists and militants. A major criticism of drone strikes is that they result in excessive collateral damage. David Kilcullen and Andrew Exum wrote in the New York Times that "according to Pakistani sources, they have also killed some 700 civilians. This is 50 civilians for every militant killed, a hit rate of 2 percent." Other studies have put the civilian casualty rate anywhere between 4 and 35 percent. It is difficult to reconcile these figures because the drone strikes are often in areas that are inaccessible to independent observers and the data includes reports by local officials and local media, neither of whom are reliable sources. Critics also fear that by making killing seem clean and safe, so-called surgical UAV strikes will allow the United States to remain in a perpetual state of war. However, others maintain that drones "allow for a much closer review and much more selective targeting process than do other instruments of warfare" and are subject to Congressional oversight. Like any military technology, armed UAVs will kill people, combatants and innocents alike, thus "the main turning point concerns the question of whether we should go to war at all."
- ↑ Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind, (February 7, 2013). Public says it's illegal to target Americans abroad as some question CIA drone attacks (press release)
- ↑ "Drone Program Poll: The Public Does Not Uncritically Embrace Targeted Killings". The Huffington Post. 15 February 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/15/drone-program-poll_n_2696352.html. Retrieved 5 October 2014.
- ↑ "U.S. Use of Drones, Under New Scrutiny, Has Been Widely Opposed Abroad". Pew Research Center. 6 February 2013. http://www.pewresearch.org/2013/02/06/u-s-use-of-drones-under-new-scrutiny-has-been-widely-opposed-abroad/. Retrieved 5 October 2014.
- ↑ Debating Drones, in the Open by David Carr, The New York Times, February 10, 2013
- ↑ Opposing Perspectives on the Drone Debate by Bradley Jay Strawser, Palgrave Macmillan , ISBN 9781137432612
- ↑ drones4peace.org
- ↑ New York Times
- ↑ Template:Cite news
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Template:Cite journal