Big Brother Bombs

On May 24th, 2000, Lockheed Martin undertook a study contract for the suitability of UAV's in England, for the MoD. The incentive was to supply reconnaissance capability, surveillance, airfield protection and support for NATO and UN operations. The ISTAR acronym (Intelligence, Surveillance, Targeting Acquisition and Reconnaissance) for the MoD was assessed and UAV's successfully installed, and Big Brother took to the skies.

UAV's are unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly referred to as drones. This enters the world of science fiction made real. The use of this technology is highly controversial, not just as an invasion of privacy, but because this technology extends the exchange of firepower with the loss of life on one side only. Like a computer game, it introduces the essence of multiple lives. If the drone is destroyed, the pilot needs only fly a new one, and continue the game from the last checkpoint. This form of combat removes the pilot from reality, enabling them to target without too much concern for the consequences. It's probably accurate to say that cameras can never reveal the absolute true picture of events, allowing an uncertainty to exist. Cameras merely open a window of perspective, for the interpretor to see what they need to, and in some cases, what they want to see. Clear as an image might be there is a strong, historical social relationship with the TV screen.

Much like the collateral murder videos revealed in Wikileaks, the military gunned down Reuter reporters perceiving their photography equipment as RPG's and AK47's. The main difference being their experience was not from the perspective of a screen, but from the aerial view from a helicopter, of the reporters below. This elevation gave them the means to abuse their power, and with all the cultivated background of video games and news reports of explosions from above, this was perhaps an inevitability. Considering the use of language between the gunner and pilot's comments during the assassination, they're not unlike the casual remarks made by gamers hitting their targets on 3D shoot em' up's. This is not to say that computer games are inherently bad, there is truly an enjoyable aspect to them, but these too are distorted with the layers of reality. After all, it's much easier to dismiss irresponsibility and load the blame on a computer game or horror movie in the modern world than it is for individuals to take responsibility for their actions.

So what then would the consequences hold for UAV's in the hands of a gamer with a high score? Not so long ago, a UK broadcast advertising the use of a small UAV being remote controlled by an X-box 360 controller aired on our television screens. The aim was to show that the military are fostering hip new ways of fighting the war on terror, the novelty being that the X-box controller was essentially an asset to the forces because of its wide use, familiarity and comfort. The overarching message for this was; forget playing your games at home, see if you have it in you to play the real games of warfare! Of course the X-Box and its controllers are all targeted to a specific audience, usually males aged fifteen to thirty, to no surprise the same market gap based on recruitment for the TA and the forces. The other relationship this holds is the fun we have associated with playing such recreational games and the reward of being the best at them. When the realities become blurred, it's harder to see where the games begin and end. When the consequences are real, then it ends in bloodshed.

On April 22nd, 2011, Aljazeera reported that Pakistani intelligence officials claimed two suspected UAV drones attacked a tribal region of North Waziristan. At least 25 people were killed, among them women and children. Nothing can be learned from this, other than the attack is clearly unreasonable, and western culture defines unreason as a principle of evil. In this particular scenario the target was a militant guest house. It's easier to see that as an enemy to Western ideology any militant can be dismissed as a common enemy. After all, they are all common enemies, and any resurgence against Western forces must be crushed without negotiation. Let's not even consider that perhaps these countries have their own cultural differences and that Western perceptions categorize them in one big Muslim box. Lets not even consider the original 2003 war on these Middle Eastern countries drove militants together to defend quite rationally what they too perceive to be the common good, against NATO and the US. As clarified in the Aljazeera report, when civilians are killed by these remote controlled bombs it only bolsters support for the Taliban, and it's clear that particularly the US are stirring this problem. One of the simplest ways to justify an action is to turn it around. Suppose your country was invaded, what would you do to survive? Who would you turn to after bombs destroyed your loved ones? There is no care for the people here. The Governments have acted how they pleased to ascertain resources and information in what they've described as a necessary war.

The drone attacks are seen as lawful, as part of the military action authorised by congress in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks as a subject of defence initiatives. By those rules, such targeted killing is not seen as assassination, perhaps this paradox is why US foreign policy is often questioned. This is in essence not a necessary war but a covert war, and therefore illegitimate, and is straining the Pakistani relations that are vital in mandating any resolve.

The News Of The World also advertised Sea-kat destroy drones, in a much more sleek and admirable light. (There's no available link for the article anymore, NOTW demands registration) but the article is a testament to the shameless salesmanship within the language of the article. The article seeks public approval, discussing their "sleek, low-profile camouflage design" and their ability to "operate over 500 miles on one fuel tank". Not much different from the UAV's that patrol the skies, this is in reference to the robot speed boats also policing the seas.

Should we be against these steps in defence? Emphatically, yes. This is no longer about who has the better explosives and toys anymore. This is about displaying the steps we're ready to take in order to deter resistance. To play the people against each other, and in turn hope for promotion into being an authoritarian preserving the systemic interests, so that the historic repetition rolls onto the next generation. Just as these machines are sold to the readers, it's not unreasonable to assume that as the market for these devices increases, they are also sold to private investors looking to watch over land, industry or business events. British firms such as GFS Projects in Petersburg won US contract in 2007 to build a vertical take off UAV. This firm was supported by a DTI grant and private investors. Even Blackwater are contemporaneously building UAV's to support their profit based margins of belligerence. Why is the UAV so popular?

What is immediately discernible here is that we're reaching for higher and higher territory, asserting our dominance through the skies. Fighting uphill is a hard fight, but there's no higher fight than that of the skies. The ability to occupy the skies and operate on the ground, to multiply one's self into being in two places at once, is the ultimate trickery of modern man and we're doing it with great success. Such divergences open an uncertain future for all of us, as weaponry pushes to obtain higher and higher divisions of atmosphere. And this is all under the table play, we are all happy to do business with one another, so long as the true intentions of play remain hidden, because an act of altruism is essentially giving the game away. We only need to look as far as Cameron's claims that he wants to assist the Lybian people. How? He sees a potential disaster and exploits it by proliferating weapons while stirring civil war. But this is not just shouldered to one man like Cameron, but the responsibility of those with the power, and also of the people's will to shift the power into responsible thinkers. As Big Brother's Bombs seek higher heavens, its players observe from the ground like gamers seeking every possible target with professional pride, to keep the score high and the money rolling in.