drones; a novel

a story:

there is a badass machine in the sky. now plenty of airborne machines are badass, true, but understand that this new machine is especially badass.

it has been flying for hours, slowly circling the ground far beneath, its inhuman eyes restlessly scanning for targets.

below, the strictly land-based evildoers are oblivious to the threat from above. the badass machine has no pilot so it is quite small; from the ground it is nearly impossible to spot with the naked eye.

these evildoers, so obviously evil that their crimes need not even be stated, walk toward a car presumably in order to transport themselves (and hence evil) to some other location.

the badass machine swings into action and a missile is fired. the missle travels faster than sound and so the evildoers pass swiftly into the next life without even realizing.

they go to hell, of course. (in this story god is real and christianity the one true religion)

witnesses to the attack, mercifully unharmed by virtue of its precision, stand around with mouths agape; torn between feelings of gratitude to be done with all that evil and awe at the incredible selective killing power of the global hegemon.

back in virginia the remote pilot of all that aerial badassery celebrates his kill by blaring his favourite death from above song, hitting play so violently that he spills his mountain dew.

and that night the president is forced to conceal his granite victory-boner by flicking it between his waistband and belly as he boasts of the achievement to the nation.

the end.

this story, apart from being a wild ride and literary masterpiece, is also literally the best possible case scenario (excepting the mountain dew spilling) of a drone strike. now just about a common feature across much of the muslim world, the use of unmanned aerial drones has exploded (a pun!) under the obama administration.

now im something of a scifi fan, and so horrendus futuristic weaponry has always interested me. from the death star to aggressive metaphysic powers, it can be fun to contemplate the effects that new weapons would have on fighting. which is exactly why drones are interesting.

make no mistake, drones represent a transformation in the way modern wars are fought. not in terms of their raw killing power (humanity has for decades had the ability to extinguish all life in a heartbeat) or reach (many planes and missles can reach essentially any corner of the globe) but, rather, for a combination of both these things.

with drones you can ("you" in this case referring to the us president or military apparatus) operate in just about any area of the world to target enemies, eliminating them relatively cheaply and with minimal civilian casualties. or so it's said.

from the perspective of a nation perpetually fighting for its life this is good news indeed. a good way to kill! nay, great! no ground forces needed! not even any risk to an american pilot!

now im being sardonic here, but actually this is how the majority of americans really feel about drones. really and actually:

83% of americans support drone strikes (and so believe in my story to some extent). more importantly 73% of liberal democrats support them.

potential issue? you betchya. even putting aside the argument that drones are nowhere near as effective as their proponents claim (especially at hitting the right targets and avoiding civilians) and assuming that drones really are effective tools, their usage is still overwhelmingly negative.

consider the frame of mind that determines drone strikes to be the preferable option. what are drone strikes preferable to exactly? carpet bombing? yeah i guess they are. if you have to wage war, then yeah. badass.

the use of drones throughout the world carries with it an implied state of constant war, or, at least, the constant absence of peace.

more than a decade after 9/11, the vast majority of americans still feel that their armed forces are justified in seeking out enemies, however loosely defined, wherever they may be on earth and killing them regardless of legality and method.

and herein lies the tragedy. the military-industrial complex of the united states is not often in the habit of winding itself back. and obama, father of the drone assassination campaign, is certainly likely to be the most progressive american president for a long while. so for the next decade at least scaling back the use of drones is essentially out of the question.

indeed, all trends from the past suggest we can only expect an increase in drone use in the near future.

and so the forecast for the future: constant, unending (albiet low intensity) war. so long as you really do believe america is under enough of a threat to warrant this response, drones are tip-top.

if you believe the relative harmony of the 1990s was an historical aberration now lost to time then drones are certainly a good way to keep on top of killing your enemies as they spring up, and a great way to ensure an endless supply of enemies to boot.

i think future classroom historians will summarize the united states of our time with a few good head-scratching examples. probably: the nation is broke but the rich dont pay taxes, global warming is not enough of an issue for action to be taken, and the president has a high-tec global assassination network at his personal command which most voters find appealing.