International Drone Treaty

[HitRed]

All roads seem to point to drones ruining civilian infrastructure.

[Pack Rat]

SLAVA UKRAINE!

[jimboston]

All roads seem to point to drones ruining civilian infrastructure.

Please define the term “Civilian Infrastructure”.

The lines between what is used for “civilian” purposes and what is used for military purposes have been blurred for years if not forever.

There have been short periods of time in history when nations or city states or civilizations followed strict “rules” for combat. Inevitability some new actor comes along and breaks those “rules”. It never matters, what matters is who wins.

*The English were all up-in-arms because the “rebels” in the colonies refused to “play by the rules”. Does anyone care now?

*Napoleon created the concept of “total war” with mass conscription and all sectors of the economy directed towards one goal. Other nations had to adjust or be defeated.

*Vikings raided undefended religious institutions and engaged in attacks during Christian holy days. The only way to stop them was to accept the new reality.

Today Russia has extreme advantages in manpower and economic/industrial power. They toss missiles at Ukraine and pretend to focus on military installations and then cry when Ukraine hits “civilian infrastructure”. Give me a break.

In Iran they are using boats held together with Flex Seal tape (exaggeration/sarcasm note)… and they are still successfully disrupting the vast majority of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The ONLY way we can stop Iran at this point is to hurt them by hitting infrastructure. I was not “for” this “war”… but if you start a fight you need to finish it.

f*ck your drone treaty idea…. it’s BS and unenforceable without POWER.

[mookiemcgee]

Yeah seems unlikely the countries who've basically pivoted out of necessity to a drone first military are pretty unlikely to make any treaties that give up their 'advantage'/'only viable form of military power'

You could of course pursue a treaty against ruining civilian infrastructure, however treaty's in general require you have the credibility to be perceived as willing and able to stick to a treaty. This credibility doesn't exist for sides who started these respective wars of aggression.

[Apatheist]

Drones are a good way to avoid losing military lives (of pilots, mainly), and being more precise about hitting only military targets. They're not going away any time soon - until someone hacks into the AI driving them and turns them on their owners.
Anyone remember that Star Trek episode where each side agrees to kill a number of its citizens based on a simulated strike, to save losing the infrastructure? Perhaps that's the way we're heading, to a completely impersonal war.

[jimboston]

Yeah seems unlikely the countries who've basically pivoted out of necessity to a drone first military are pretty unlikely to make any treaties that give up their 'advantage'/'only viable form of military power'

You could of course pursue a treaty against ruining civilian infrastructure, however treaty's in general require you have the credibility to be perceived as willing and able to stick to a treaty. This credibility doesn't exist for sides who started these respective wars of aggression.

Credibility and /or the “world” has too have enough credibility to enforce compliance… which it doesn’t have now and may never have again.
(If it ever did… I think Britain had enough credibility and power to stop mass international slave trading.