Summary
On October 30th the play Grounded by George Brant showed at the Chapel and Cultural Center at RPI. It was a one-woman play that featured the life of a fighter pilot in the air force. She is a fierce, independent woman who loves flying and “the blue” more than anything. One day she meets the man of her dreams and becomes pregnant, forcing her to leave her job as a pilot for maternity leave. When she returns she is informed she will now be flying a Reaper drone from the ground rather than her jet. The job soon becomes consuming; even when off of work she cannot shake the feeling of always being watched, helpless, her world turning grey, like those she watches and hunts in the drone. She becomes paranoid and the lines are blurred between her work and her daily life until she sees the people she loves in her victims and cannot complete her missions. She is taken away from her family and work by the military for medical treatment.
The following day a panel of war activists from Women Against War and Know Drones spoke of their experiences with Hancock Air National Guard in Syracuse, where they have protested the use of drones. They experienced many injustices by military members, police, and court justices who felt personally offended by their statements and exercise of the first amendment. All members agreed drones were dangerously inaccurate, causing more civilian deaths than necessary, fueling war and hatred of the United States, and morally unjust as the victims have no chance to retaliate or defend themselves. They hope to gain more membership and spread awareness of the victims through the Drone Quilt Project, which shows each victim of the drones with a square on a quilt.
Analysis & Synthesis
In listening to both the play and the panel I have come to believe military drones are a perfect example of an innovation with a lack of intelligent trial-and-error. In Grounded, the main character’s madness displayed a lack of understanding of possible issues from the operating side. If the mental effects of operating drones had been studied and shown to cause paranoia, a sort of digitally-induced form of PTSD, measures would have been put in place to prevent it. When the pilot was taken away her commander told her they had been watching her and she had been showing “warning signs”. While this shows some kind of testing or knowledge of the effects she experienced, it does not show an intelligent approach that sought to catch her condition early or address it in use of the innovation.
The activists’ cause also shows a lack of intelligent trial and error; very few people know a lot about drones, but it is regarded as highly controversial, and is still used despite the controversy. The activists’ argued about the long-term effects the hatred of other countries caused by U.S. drone activity, including attacks on U.S. citizens. Never were citizens given the choice to implement drones, they were put into use and now citizens are at risk whether they want to be or not.
Military drones are generally accepted as highly inaccurate, the activists sited a 49:1 civilian death to suspect ratio. If the results are truly that inaccurate, more testing and adjustment should have been done to catch and change the drones to be more accurate.
More intelligent trial and error for drones would have brought a better, more effective innovation for use in military missions, but also more support and understanding for the public. The current flaws in military drones including their negative effects on military pilots, their lack of accuracy, their sudden implementation and long term effects create distrust, personal and national emotional damage, and fear. However, drones are successful in that they give us a fast, cheap, and risk-of-death-free hand in fighting national enemies. I believe their R&D was far too military-focused when a more holistic and nationally-focused approach, intelligent trial-and-error, would have yielded better results for everyone in the U.S. and our soldiers out of it.
