I find it so strange to hear a top news story referring to an un-manned aerial vehicle almost hitting a businessman in New York City. Mostly, I couldn’t help but see the humor in the term un-MANned vehicle. Does it matter what we call them?
In 2009, my country began preparing to fight wars using drones. This term was adopted long ago by the U.S.
military to mean a lazy bystander or a mindless thing or person that just
follows directions but never has to know where it is going, like a gunner on a
bomber (USmilitary.about.com). Now, a drone simply refers to a flying machine
without a pilot. Using drones, we could
send out millions of copies of a remote controlled object to do our bidding,
without any risk to a pilot. Initially,
there was a difference between a pre-programmed flying machine, and a pilotless
aircraft. Yes, endless resources would be used to create expendable faux life forms,
minus the difficulties of self-will to get in the way of the desired
outcome. If they crash en-route, who
cares? If they run out of fuel and
cannot return, who cares? If they kill
the wrong folks, who cares? The vehicle
would be un-inhabited, un-piloted, un-manned. Chalk mistakes up to more collateral
damage.
The development of the drone is much like the development of
any other product. It has many uses,
some for being helpful and some for being destructive, others for killing
humans. The technology of the U.S. built
drones is a secret. It’s a weapon. If our perceived enemies had them, they would
just do the same as what we are doing and the power would be lost.
An incident in Iran, in 2012 (?), changed the goal of drone
technology significantly. Basically, if
one crashes or looses contact with the controller, it lands. If the Iranians get hold of it, it can be
changed and used against us. If the
control codes on board the machine are compromised, they can be used against
us. The best way, as it turns out, to
eliminate this possibility is to have the drone follow a pre-programmed mission
returning it back to us at all costs.
So, now, if we follow technology in the direction of need, the goal is to
develop a drone with the discernment of a human, but without distractibility
(yes, controlling a drone is a very boring job), risk of compromise, and loss
of the vehicle. The goal has always been
to seek out the enemy and destroy it.
The goal is not to find the conflict, get to know the fears and needs of
each side, provide solutions, and encourage follow through. This takes a long time, and much patience
with our humanity.
This metamorphosis of the popular use of the word drone
to un-manned aerial vehicle seems ironic. We even have an acronym, which further
removes us from the decision making process the military is using to develop
this technology, UAV. It reminds one of
the WMD, weapon of mass destruction. It
seems so absurd to manipulate the name of a product into something so difficult
to visualize and to understand when it holds lives in the balance.
The use of UAV’s to drop food and water down to religious
refugees in Iraq makes this issue confusing.
At the same time, UAV’s are being used to carry out violent attacks on
Kurds and Islamic extremists. How do we begin to talk about the difference
between the armed un-manned vehicles, and the ones carrying aid to the
region? When we stop organizing humans
into enemy and friend, remaining is a deeply disturbing story of a super
power’s machines arriving to both destroy and to nurture. Sound like God? How will we know the difference? How will we know into which category we will
fall? How will we ever again feel safe
under the grand and beautiful sheltering sky?
The military, people, and press of the United States are not referring to all other vehicles
driven by people as “manned”. A manned vehicle heading south rear-ended
another vehicle at a stoplight. The
woman did not apologize. I don’t
think the US public would go for that. Over
the years, we, as a nation, have evolved beyond the use of automatic masculine
language. We generally avoid using
manpower, mankind, and using he or him when referring to an unidentified
person. This has brought us a long way
toward equality of the genders.
So, to have a morally controversial modern war tactic
referred to using assumed masculine terminology is curious. In 2013, women in the military achieved equal
status in combat zones. Wow, what an
achievement! Both women and men now have
the right to kill or be killed in defense of our country. I’m fairly certain women are equal in
achieving pilot status in the military.
So, would it be appropriate to call these jets “manned” aerial
vehicles? Probably not.
 |
| Original Cartoon by Glee 8-12-2014 |
So, where is all of this manned
and unmanned terminology coming
from?
Consider the myth that women are gentle, passive, peace loving, nurturers. Okay, now look at the history of the oppression of women when women are seen through this lens of gentility. Along with this myth comes the assumption that a woman will not fight back, will not do violence, that she will give rather than take, soothe rather than defend. Some even refer to this as feminine power. The power that brings people together and ends conflict without violence. One can see this kind of power in the art of Aikido, where the force of the aggressor is used against them, by pulling or avoiding the coming force and allowing it to be party to its own demise.
Honestly, non-violent action is just a brilliant use of
power by those who lack the might to physically overcome the oppressor. S. Brian Wilson once said, “…power is
vulnerable because it requires co-operation.”
There it is; how can those in power continue the status quo when the
oppressed refuse to co-operate? If we
continually block, prevent, defend, and protect, when designing our military
force in the United States, we are bringing more violence to our country and
possibly the world.
But, what does any of this have to do with the term un-manned? Well, you see, when there is a man who
believes the myth of masculine power, that of physical strength, taking rather
than receiving, and pushing rather than waiting, we are all being forced to
play out a game of defense. When he
stops to consider the moral implications of his actions, there is often fear or
loss behind the need to defend or protect.
When one has power, there is something to loose. When we all have power, we all have something
to loose. When no one has power, no one
has anything to loose.
So, I feel it is a detrimental misconception, this adoption
of the term un-manned. A vehicle of war that is un-manned might be
perceived as less violent than something manned. By calling it un-manned, we are passively
referring to the pilot who isn’t there as “man”. This supports the myth that men use violence
rather than diplomacy. The difference is
subtle, but it is dangerous. My partner
and I are working very hard to show our two boys that they are whole and to use
non-violent means to conflict resolution.
I would like to suggest we call one type of vehicle empty killing machines and the others automated humanitarians. That would make it EKM’s and AH’s. A bit more honest.
References: “US drone
strikes are believed to have killed over 2,400 people in the past five
years.” Huffington Post’s World Post Drone Art Project Hopes to Make Pilots Think
Twice Before They Shoot by Nick Robbbins-Early 4-7-14
USMilitary.About.com provided a definition of drone. Drone:
A drone is a collective name for pilotless aircraft. But original meaning was and is ‘the male of
the honeybee and other bees.”
Huffington Post: This
news provider has covered many issues concerning militarized drones.
BusinessInsider.com: Iran Has Changed US Drone Development
Forever, October 4, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat:
“In 1994 the Department of Defense officially banned women from serving in
combat but on January 24, 2013, Secretary of
Defense Leon Panetta
removed the military's ban on women serving in combat, which was instituted in
1994. [15] Implementation of these
rules is ongoing. There is some speculation that this could lead to women
having to register with the Selective Service System. [16]”
