Let's completely ignore the ridiculous Die Hard reference for a second.
I don't know how I feel about drones, but it seems a large part of the opposition is the unmanned part. I have two problems with this argument:
(1) They're not unmanned. Somebody is actively controlling them.
(2) Why does a pilot make a difference? Pilot's don't get a choice in their targets. This isn't a movie where pilots can decline to fire on a target. They'd certainly get a court martial, their career would be ruined, their life would be ruined with a dishonorable discharge, and depending on the circumstances they very well could go to prison.
So, I guess the reason I feel somewhat indifferent to drones is that I don't really get the main point of opposition. What makes a drone so much different than planes?
There is another argument about due process ...but what's the difference btwn a drone and an officer on the ground when confronted with a suspect. Say there is a suspect. The FBI could send in a drone or could send in officers on the ground. Drone or officers could find the suspect dangerous and have to take him out. In either case there is no due process procedure. I think this line of argument is a dead end. Actually, as noted elsewhere, you probably have more chance at surviving this confrontation with a drone than with people --people, if they feel threatened could find it justifiable to shoot more quickly than a remote pilot.
Piloted aircraft and pilots are expensive. Drones have no pilots, and are thus much less expensive. It is not economically feasible to monitor vast swaths of land with vast numbers of piloted airplanes. It is economically feasible to monitor vast swaths of land with vast numbers of drones.
But that's not an argument against drones, that's an argument against large-scale government surveillance.
Ignoring whether or not you think government surveillance is a positive, negative, or neutral, the fact that a piece of technology makes it easier doesn't mean that technology is bad.
Edit: I'm not an expert in either field, but I imagine a similar argument could be made against satellites. That doesn't mean we should have a filibuster against GPS and Sirius.
Drones are actually on par for cost with F-15-generation fighter craft (i.e. pre-F-22). Drone pilots (yes, they have pilots) are required to go through the same training as the other pilots (in the USAF at least, who operates most of them), they draw much of the same special incentive pay, etc.
So I'm not even sure that drones are really that much cheaper, except perhaps if it's feasible to remotely pilot a large number of drones with just a single drone pilot.
But either way, even a cheap drone is more expensive than a soldier with a rifle.
It's obvious that the training process for drone pilots is much less rigorous than that for normal pilots.
I haven't dug into the numbers, but I guarantee you that all else being equal, a drone is much, much less expensive than a piloted plane of similar capabilities. That much is also obvious.
I don't know how I feel about drones, but it seems a large part of the opposition is the unmanned part. I have two problems with this argument:
(1) They're not unmanned. Somebody is actively controlling them.
(2) Why does a pilot make a difference? Pilot's don't get a choice in their targets. This isn't a movie where pilots can decline to fire on a target. They'd certainly get a court martial, their career would be ruined, their life would be ruined with a dishonorable discharge, and depending on the circumstances they very well could go to prison.
So, I guess the reason I feel somewhat indifferent to drones is that I don't really get the main point of opposition. What makes a drone so much different than planes?