A drone, in and of itself, is not really much of an issue at all.

[11 Bravo]

A Hellfire missile, on the other hand, can fuck up your entire day!

[hollysmom]

1. I think if drones are used to look for people missing in the woods,

it would be a good thing. Spying is kind of eh, maybe, but killing, not so much.

[AgainsttheCrown]

9. I foresee the day...

When drones will be used to observe traffic violations for the police.

Living in a free state means that many traffic infractions go unobserved. Living in a drone filled surveillance state means that police will soon be able to stop anyone for any reason even if they didn't personally observe the violation.

[Amonester]

10. If only spying drones could spot all who 'text and drive' at the same time...

Useless social networks (too often).

[1-Old-Man]

2. I agree, it is no different than some sort of hit squad.

I am not much inclined to think a drone is very much different than any other sniper, other than for the remoteness of the trigger relative to the target. But that's not the point. The point is that not only is there little effort made to insure that no US citizen is hit, it appears that some have been targeted without the intervention of legal process. No Judge, no Jury, just an executioner acting without authority.

[kestrel91316]

5. Fail. Drones are not weapons, they are pilotless aircraft. They can be used for surveillance and

reconnaissance. These are the types of drones my dad spent most of his 23 years in the USAF developing.

Then there are armed drones,- these have weapons mounted on them and they are NOT permitted for domestic use.

STOP LYING AND FEARMONGERING. When "American citizens" have been hit by them, it's because they were in a foreign country where it is not safe to use normal police or military procedures to capture terrorists, and they were targeted because they were waging war against the US. No Americans or anyone else have been targeted by armed drones on US soil. EVER.

And in case you haven't noticed, US judges and US juries have no jurisdiction over foreign soil.

[JaneQPublic]

3. Good point.

The prevailing view at DU seems to be that, without drones, there'd be no strikes on suspected terrorists and therefore no inadvertent deaths of innocent people. But before drones were used extensively, there were missiles and bombs. And without drones, missiles and bombs would be used again.

And as far as the fear of drones being used for domestic surveillance, just as much intelligence could be gathered by intercepting cell phone calls or by cruising the streests with a panel truck loaded with surveillance gear.

[Trekologer]

4. There is a misconception of what a drone is

It seems that folks think that a drone is an unmanned, autonomous flying "robot". It is controlled, by a military pilot, remotely. It is no different than a military plane with the pilot in it except that the crew is safely out of harms way.

[AgainsttheCrown]

6. That's why they are a problem

If the troops are out of harms way then even less of the American population has skin in the game when we go out and illegally invade countries.

That is why drones are evil...as a result they'll make warfare less bloody for us and will provide the means for the war on terrorism to continue indefinitely.

[Robb]

7. We had 170,000 troops in Iraq at one point. "Skin" doesn't seem much deterrent.

[AgainsttheCrown]

11. True...

But how many military families and friends grew tired of repeated deployments? If we're fighting with drones then less of those people will have a vested interest in getting out of wars.

Public opinion had a hand in getting us in AND out of Iraq. If even less of the public cares than do now, then America will be able to bring more destruction to the world...while it's "warriors" are safely nestled in an office in Virginia or a base in Saudi Arabia.

[retread]

8. True. Drones cannot sting, develop from haploid cells, and mate

with the queen. Other than that they do no work and are pretty much useless.