ARRSE is supported by the advertisements on it, so if you use an adblocker please consider helping us by starting an Ad-Free subscription.

Remote Control - The Future of Warfare??

Discussion in 'Staff College and Staff Officers' started by Bad CO, Oct 31, 2016.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Bad CO

    Bad CO LE Admin Reviews Editor Gallery Guru

    I've not come across the Remote Control Project before but have just come across a fascinating paper that they've published which uses open source information to map UKSF and drone strikes in the so called 'war against terror.'

    The paper argues that this shows the UK is actively engaged in 'Remote Control' warfare against ISIS and similar organisations. It then suggests that this is taking place without any form of democratic scrutiny of the overall strategy and highlights that this may result in questions about legitimacy.

    Although I'm not sure I like the term remote control for the sort of covert, semi-deniable, small scale but large impact operations that the paper describes, it is difficult to argue that overall there is a really decent point being made. It also correctly emphasises the attractiveness for politicians of this sort of approach. Of course it has gone on in different forms for generations but I suspect that the results of Iraq/Afghanistan may mean that this is what the future looks like for us.
     
    • Excellent Topic Excellent Topic x 2
  2. Sarastro

    Sarastro LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    The "Oxford Research Group" is an umbrella for Drone Wars UK and a variety of other Christian-inspired anti-war projects. It has no relation to Oxford University. They are resolutely anti-"drone" but have moved on from conducting low level disruption and vandalism on airbases about 5 years ago, to a more political tack of influencing HoC decision making, which the usual MP suspects in the low-knowledge high-virtue part of the spectrum have lapped up (or did, before the Labour white dwarf started collapsing into its own event horizon).

    I would take anything that originates from them with a massive pinch of bias.
     
    • Like Like x 5
    • Informative Informative x 3
  3. I am always a bit dubious of the pressure groups attacking drone use. They imply that these things float around doing weapons release on anything and everything without any further recourse or scrutiny. As anyone who has done a targeting course knows, to achieve a planned release of weapons to achieve effect requires a very formal highly scrutinised boarding process with considerable input from specialists.

    They also refuse to understand the clear distinctions between embedded and exchange personnel too, believing that someone on exchange is somehow carrying out UK Govt policy rather than Host Nation policy.

    I bear the scars of many encounters with groups like this in the past!
     
    • Like Like x 5
    • Informative Informative x 2
  4. Sarastro

    Sarastro LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Quite. I've sat in on a number of public forums on this. We may have crossed paths at the one in Portcullis house last year with Lamb, McChrystal, David Davis and Harriet Harman?

    Invariably the Harriet Harman types are woefully poorly informed and, more to the point, absolutely refuse to accept any of the factual information (usually limited) or practical experience (much less limited) offered by those who are better informed.

    Having the debate is one thing, and laudable. Having the debate but only listening to people with no actual experience and deeply flawed information simply because they fit your existing political prejudices...well that's a pretty good tagline for that new western, Democracy (2016).
     
    • Like Like x 8
  5. Don't know what they're going on about to be honest.

    If anything drone strikes are far better than the alternative.

    For starters you don't have to cram a legal team, political types, assorted experts in to the cabin.

    Second, you've removed the immediacy of the situation. No pilot in danger. You can send Johnny 5 around as many times as you want to get confirmation or the 'shot' you want.

    Hippies tend to have watched too much Terminator and not enough avatar. These things don't launch of their own volition.

    Weren't new warfare types always objected to? Ie submarines.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Show again braincell Show again braincell x 1
  6. But a) that doesn't obviate our requirement to keep on doing so and b) perhaps they don't believe you because, despite obvious evidence to the contrary, we continue to deny (or refuse to talk about) stuff like this happens.
     
  7. Make them watch 'eye in the sky'?
     
  8. While there is an element of truth in this there are a bundle of psychological studies that show that all humans are mentally wired to believe what they already 'know' and disbelieve anything else. We have two brief periods of mentally more flexible thought, up to the age of 5 and from 16 to 26; other than that we all, NCO's, VSO's, civil servants, tree hugging commie peaceniks alike are not really interested in changing our minds.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  9. You can't bloody win.

    Joe public whines when you put boots on the ground and cries when you don't.
     
  10. Great line :mrgreen:
     
  11. The future of warfare? No way it's here and now in my house. My house I say so my remote.
     
  12. Genuinely interested in this - what would you recommend as a starting point?
     
  13. I thought targeting sop was to bomb suspicious weddings/funerals with extreme prejudice
     
  14. Thanks @beardyProf . I will take a look through, although a quick skim suggests that - as an ex-infantryman - I may need to find a pop-science paperback to guide me through using shorter words.

    Apologies for the thread drift.