Terminator Planet: Launching the Drone Wars

In 1984, Skynet, the supercomputer that rules a future Earth, sent a
cyborg assassin, a "terminator," back to our time. His job was to
liquidate the woman who would give birth to John Connor, the leader of
the underground human resistance of Skynet's time. You with me so far?
That, of course, was the plot of the first Terminator
movie and for the multi-millions who saw it, the images of future
machine war -- of hunter-killer drones flying above a wasted landscape
-- are unforgettable.

Since then, as Hollywood's special effects took off, there were two
sequels during which the original terminator somehow morphed into a
friendlier figure on screen, and even more miraculously, off-screen,
into the humanoid governor of California. Now, the fourth film in the
series, Terminator Salvation, is about to descend on us. It will hit our multiplexes this May.

Oh, sorry, I don't mean hit hit. I mean, arrive in.

Meanwhile, hunter-killer drones haven't waited for Hollywood. As you
sit in that movie theater in May, actual unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs), pilotless surveillance and assassination drones armed with
Hellfire missiles, will be patrolling our expanding global battlefields,
hunting down human beings. And in the Pentagon and the labs of defense
contractors, UAV supporters are already talking about and working on
next-generation machines. Post-2020, according to these dreamers,
drones will be able to fly and fight, discern enemies and incinerate them without human decision-making. They're even wondering about just how to program human ethics, maybe even American ethics, into them.

Okay, it may never happen, but it should still make you blink that out
there in America are people eager to bring the fifth iteration of Terminator
not to local multiplexes, but to the skies of our perfectly real world
-- and that the Pentagon is already funding them to do so.

An Arms Race of One

Now, keep our present drones, those MQ-1 Predators and more advanced
MQ-9 Reapers, in mind for a moment. Remember that, as you read, they're
cruising Iraqi, Afghan, and Pakistani skies looking for potential
"targets," and in Pakistan's tribal borderlands, are employing what
Centcom commander General David Petraeus calls "the right of last resort" to take out "threats" (as well as tribespeople who just happen to be in the vicinity). And bear with me while I offer you a little potted history of the modern arms race.

Think of it as starting in the early years of the twentieth century
when Imperial Britain, industrial juggernaut and colonial upstart
Germany, and Imperial Japan all began to plan and build new generations
of massive battleships or dreadnoughts
(followed by "super-dreadnoughts") and so joined in a fierce naval arms
race. That race took a leap onto land and into the skies in World War I
when scientists and war planners began churning out techno-marvels of
death and destruction meant to break the stalemate of trench warfare on
the Western front.

Each year, starting in 1915, new or improved weaponry -- poison gas,
upgrades of the airplane, the tank and then the improved tank --
appeared on or above the battlefield. Even as those marvels arrived,
the next generation of weapons was already on the drawing boards. (In a
sense, American auto makers took up the same battle plan in peacetime,
unveiling new, ramped up car models each year.) As a result, when World
War I ended in 1918, the war machinery of 1919 and 1920 was already
being mapped out and developed. The next war, that is, and the weapons
that would go with it were already in the mind's eye of war planners.

From the first years of the twentieth century on, an obvious
prerequisite for what would prove a never-ending arms race was two to
four great powers in potential collision, each of which had the ability
to mobilize scientists, engineers, universities, and manufacturing
power on a massive scale. World War II was, in these terms, a bonanza
for invention as well as destruction. It ended, of course, with the
Manhattan Project, that ne plus ultra
of industrial-sized invention for destruction, which produced the first
atomic bomb, and so the Cold War nuclear arms race that followed.

In that 45-year-long brush with extinction, the United States and the
Soviet Union each mobilized a military-industrial complex to build ever
newer generations of ever more devastating nuclear weaponry and
delivery systems for a MAD (mutually assured destruction) world. At the
peak of that two-superpower arms race, the resulting arsenals had the
mad capacity to destroy eight or ten planets our size.

In 1991, after 73 years, the Soviet Union, that Evil Empire, simply
evaporated, leaving but a single superpower without rivals astride
planet Earth. And then came the unexpected thing: the arms race, which
had been almost a century in the making, did not end. Instead, the
unimaginable occurred and it simply morphed into a "race" of one with a
finish line so distant -- the bomber of 2018, Earth-spanning weapons
systems, a vast anti-ballistic missile system, and weaponry for the
heavens of perhaps 2050 -- as to imply eternity.

Pentagon and the military-industrial complex surrounding it --
including mega-arms manufacturers, advanced weapons labs, university
science centers, and the official or semi-official think tanks that
churned out strategies for future military domination -- went right on.
After a brief, post-Cold War blip of time in which "peace dividends"
were discussed but not implemented, the "race" actually began to amp up
again, and after September 11, 2001, went into overdrive against
"Islamo-fascism" (aka the Global War on Terror, or the Long War).

In those years, our Evil Empire of the moment, except in the minds of a
clutch of influential neocons, was a ragtag terrorist outfit made up of
perhaps a few thousand adherents and scattered global wannabes, capable
of mounting spectacular-looking but infrequent and surprisingly
low-tech attacks on symbolic American (and other) targets. Against this
enemy, the Pentagon budget became, for a while, an excuse for anything.

This brings us to our present unbalanced world of military might in which the U.S. accounts for
nearly half of all global military spending and the total Pentagon
budget is almost six times that of the next contender, China. Recently,
the Chinese have announced relatively modest plans to build up their military and create a genuinely offshore navy. Similarly, the Russians have moved to downsize
and refinance their tattered armed forces and the industrial complex
that goes with them, while upgrading their weapons systems. This could
potentially make the country more competitive when it comes to global
arms dealing, a market more than half of which has been cornered by the U.S. They are also threatening to upgrade their "strategic nuclear forces,"
even as Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama have agreed to push
forward a new round of negotiations for nuclear reductions.

Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has just announced cutbacks in some of the more outre
and futuristic military R&D programs inherited from the Cold War
era. The Navy's staggering 11 aircraft-carrier battle groups will over
time also be reduced by one. Minor as that may seem, it does signal an
imperial downsizing, given that the Navy refers to
each of those carriers, essentially floating military bases, as "four
and a half acres of sovereign U.S. territory." Nonetheless, the
Pentagon budget will grow modestly and the U.S. will remain in a
futuristic arms race of one, a significant part of which involves
reserving the skies as well as the heavens for American power.

Assassination by Air

Speaking of controlling those skies, let's get back to UAVs. As
futuristic weapons planning went, they started out pretty low-tech in
the 1990s. Even today, the most commonplace of the two American armed
drones, the Predator, costs only $4.5 million a pop, while the most
advanced model, that Reaper -- both are produced by General Atomics
Aeronautical Systems of San Diego -- comes in at $15 million. (Compare
that to $350 million
for a single F-22 Raptor, which has proved essentially useless in
America's most recent counterinsurgency wars.) It's lucky UAVs are
cheap, since they are also prone to crashing. Think of them as
snowmobiles with wings that have received ever more sophisticated
optics and powerful weaponry.

They came to life as surveillance tools during the wars over the former Yugoslavia, were armed
by February 2001, were hastily pressed into operation in Afghanistan
after 9/11, and like many weapons systems, began to evolve
generationally. As they did, they developed from surveillance eyes in
the sky into something far more sinister and previously restricted to terra firma:
assassins. One of the earliest armed acts of a CIA-piloted Predator,
back in November 2002, was an assassination mission over Yemen in which
a jeep, reputedly transporting six suspected al-Qaeda operatives, was incinerated.

Today, the most advanced UAV, the Reaper, housing up to four Hellfire
missiles and two 500-pound bombs, packs the sort of punch once reserved
for a jet fighter. Dispatched to the skies over the farthest reaches of
the American empire, powered by a 1,000-horsepower turbo prop engine at
its rear, the Reaper can fly at
up to 21,000 feet for up to 22 hours (until fuel runs short), streaming
back live footage from three cameras (or sending it to troops on the
ground) --- 16,000 hours of video a month.

No need to worry about a pilot dozing off during those 22 hours. The
human crews "piloting" the drones, often from thousands of miles away,
just change shifts when tired. So the planes are left to endlessly
cruise Iraqi, Afghan, and Pakistani skies relentlessly seeking out,
like so many terminators, specific enemies whose identities can, under
certain circumstances -- or so the claims go -- be determined even through the walls of houses.
When a "target" is found and agreed upon -- in Pakistan, the permission
of Pakistani officials to fire is no longer considered necessary -- and
a missile or bomb is unleashed, the cameras are so powerful that
"pilots" can watch the facial expressions of those being liquidated on
their computer monitors "as the bomb hits."

Approximately 5,500 UAVs, mostly unarmed -- less than 250 of them are
Predators and Reapers -- now operate over Iraq and the Af-Pak (as in
the Afghanistan-Pakistan) theater of operations. Part of the
more-than-century-long development
of war in the air, drones have become favorites of American military
planners. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in particular has demanded
increases in their production (and in the training of their "pilots")
and urged that they be rushed in quantity into America's battle zones
even before being fully perfected.

And yet, keep in mind that the UAV still remains in its (frightening)
infancy. Such machines are not, of course, advanced cyborgs. They are
in some ways not even all that advanced. Because someone now wants
publicity for the drone-war program, reporters from the U.S. and elsewhere
have recently been given "rare behind-the-scenes" looks at how it
works. As a result, and also because the "covert war" in the skies over
Pakistan makes Washington's secret warriors proud enough to regularly
leak news of its "successes," we know something more about how our
drone wars work.

We know, for instance, that at least part of the Air Force's Afghan UAV
program runs out of Kandahar Air Base in southern Afghanistan. It turns
out that, pilotless as the planes may be, a pilot does have to be
nearby to guide them into the air and handle landings. As soon as the
drone is up, a two-man team, a pilot and a "sensor monitor," backed by
intelligence experts and meteorologists, takes over the controls either
at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona, or at Creech Air Force Base northwest of Las Vegas, some 7,000-odd miles away. (Other U.S. bases may be involved as well.)

According to Christopher Drew of the New York Times,
who visited Davis-Monthan where Air National Guard members handle the
controls, the pilots sit unglamorously "at 1990s-style computer banks
filled with screens, inside dimly lit trailers." Depending on the needs
of the moment, they can find themselves "over" either Afghanistan or
Iraq, or even both on the same work shift. All of this is remarkably
mundane -- pilot complaints generally run to problems "transitioning"
back to wife and children after a day at the joystick over battle zones
-- and at the same time, right out of Ali Baba's One Thousand and One Nights.

In those dimly lit trailers, the UAV teams have taken on an almost
godlike power. Their job is to survey a place thousands of miles
distant (and completely alien to their lives and experiences), assess
what they see, and spot "targets" to eliminate -- even if on their
somewhat antiquated computer systems it "takes up to 17 steps --
including entering data into pull-down windows -- to fire a missile"
and incinerate those below. They only face danger, other than carpal
tunnel syndrome, when they leave the job. A sign at Creech warns a pilot
to "drive carefully"; "this, it says, is 'the most dangerous part of
your day.'" Those involved claim that the fear and thrill of battle do
not completely escape them, but the descriptions we now have of their
world sound discomfortingly like a cross between the far frontiers of
sci-fi and a call center in India.

The most intense of our various drone wars, the one on the other side
of the Afghan border in Pakistan, is also the most mysterious. We know
that some or all of the drones engaged in it take off from Pakistani
airfields; that this "covert war" (which regularly makes front-page
news) is run by the CIA out of its headquarters in Langley, Virginia; that its pilots are also located somewhere in the U.S.; and that at least some of them are hired private contractors.

William Saletan of Slatehas described
our drones as engaged in "a bloodless, all-seeing airborne hunting
party." Of course, what was once an elite activity performed in person
has been transformed into a 24/7 industrial activity fit for human

Our drone wars also represent a new chapter in the history of
assassination. Once upon a time, to be an assassin for a government was
a furtive, shameful thing. In those days, of course, an assassin, if
successful, took down a single person, not the targeted individual and
anyone in the vicinity (or simply, if targeting intelligence proves
wrong, anyone in the vicinity). No more poison-dart-tipped umbrellas, as in past KGB operations, or toxic cigars as in CIA ones -- not now that assassination has taken to the skies as an every day, all-year-round activity.

Today, we increasingly display our assassination wares with pride. To
us, at least, it seems perfectly normal for assassination aerial
operations to be a part of an open discussion in Washington and in the
media. Consider this a new definition of "progress" in our world.

Proliferation and Sovereignty

This brings us back to arms races. They may be things of the past, but
don't for a minute imagine that those hunter-killer skies won't someday
fill with the drones of other nations. After all, one of the truths of
our time is that no weapons system, no matter where first created, can
be kept for long as private property. Today, we talk not of arms races,
but of "proliferation," which is what you have once a global arms race
of one takes hold.

In drone-world, the Chinese, the Russians, the Israelis, the
Pakistanis, the Georgians, and the Iranians, among others, already have
drones. In the Lebanon War of 2006, Hezbollah flew drones over Israel. In fact, if you have the skills, you can create your own drone, more or less in your living room (as your basic DIY drone website indicates). Undoubtedly, the future holds unnerving possibilities for small groups intent on assassination from the air.

Already the skies are growing more crowded. Three weeks ago, President Obama issued what Reuters termed
"an unprecedented videotaped appeal to Iran... offering a 'new
beginning' of diplomatic engagement to turn the page on decades of U.S.
policy toward America's longtime foe." It was in the form of a Persian
New Year's greeting. As the New York Timesalso reported,
the U.S. military beat the president to the punch. They sent their own
"greetings" to the Iranians a couple of days earlier.

After considering what Times reporters Rod Nordland
and Alissa J. Rubin term "the delicacy of the incident at a time when
the United States is seeking a thaw in its relations with Iran," the
U.S. military sent out Col. James Hutton to meet the press and
"confirm" that "allied aircraft" had shot down an "Iranian unmanned
aerial vehicle" over Iraq on February 25th, more than three weeks
earlier. Between that day and mid-March, the relevant Iraqi military
and civilian officials were, the Times
tells us, not informed. The reason? That drone was intruding on our
(borrowed) airspace, not theirs. You probably didn't know it, but
according to an Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman, "protection of Iraqi
airspace remains an American responsibility for the next three years."

And naturally enough, we don't want other countries' drones in "our"
airspace, though that's hardly likely to stop them. The Iranians, for
instance, have already announced the development of "a new generation of 'spy drones' that provide real-time surveillance over enemy terrain."

Of course, when you openly control squads of assassination drones
patrolling airspace over other countries, you've already made a mockery
of whatever national sovereignty might once have meant. It's a
precedent that may someday even make us distinctly uncomfortable. But
not right now.

If you doubt this, check out the stream of self-congratulatory comments
being leaked by Washington officials about our drone assassins. These
often lead off
news pieces about America's "covert war" over Pakistan ("An intense,
six-month campaign of Predator strikes in Pakistan has taken such a
toll on Al Qaeda that militants have begun turning violently on one
another out of confusion and distrust, U.S. intelligence and
counter-terrorism officials say..."); but be sure to read to the end of
such pieces. Somewhere in them, after the successes have been touted
and toted up, you get the bad news: "In fact, the stepped-up strikes
have coincided with a deterioration in the security situation in

In Pakistan, a war of machine assassins is visibly provoking terror
(and terrorism), as well as anger and hatred among people who are by no means fundamentalists. It is part of a larger destabilization of the country.

To those who know their air power history, that shouldn't be so
surprising. Air power has had a remarkably stellar record when it comes
to causing death and destruction, but a remarkably poor one when it
comes to breaking the will of nations, peoples, or even modest-sized
organizations. Our drone wars are destructive, but they are unlikely to
achieve Washington's goals.

The Future Awaits Us

If you want to read the single most chilling line yet uttered about
drone warfare American-style, it comes at the end of Christopher Drew's
piece. He quotes Brookings Institution analyst Peter Singer saying of
our Predators and Reapers: "[T]hese systems today are very much Model T
Fords. These things will only get more advanced."

In other words, our drone wars are being fought with the airborne
equivalent of cars with cranks, but the "race" to the horizon is
already underway. By next year, some Reapers will have a far more
sophisticated sensor system with 12 cameras capable of filming a
two-and-a-half mile round area from 12 different angles. That program
has been dubbed "Gorgon Stare",
but it doesn't compare to the future 92-camera Argus program whose
initial development is being funded by the Pentagon's blue-skies
outfit, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Soon enough, a single pilot may be capable of handling not one but
perhaps three drones, and drone armaments will undoubtedly grow
progressively more powerful and "precise." In the meantime, BAE Systems
already has a drone four years into development, the Taranis,
that should someday be "completely autonomous"; that is, it
theoretically will do without human pilots. Initial trials of a
prototype are scheduled for 2010.

By 2020, so claim UAV enthusiasts, drones could be engaging in aerial
battle and choosing their victims themselves. As Robert S. Boyd of
McClatchy reported recently,
"The Defense Department is financing studies of autonomous, or
self-governing, armed robots that could find and destroy targets on
their own. On-board computer programs, not flesh-and-blood people,
would decide whether to fire their weapons."

It's a particular sadness of our world that, in Washington, only the
military can dream about the future in this way, and then fund the
"arms race" of 2018
or 2035. Rest assured that no one with a governmental red cent is
researching the health care system of 2018 or 2035, or the public
education system of those years.

In the meantime, the skies of our world are filling with
round-the-clock assassins. They will only evolve and proliferate. Of
course, when we check ourselves out in the movies, we like to identify
with John Connor, the human resister, the good guy of this planet,
against the evil machines. Elsewhere, however, as we fight our drone
wars ever more openly, as we field mechanical techno-terminators with
all-seeing eyes and loose our missiles from thousands of miles away ("Hasta la Vista,
Baby!"), we undoubtedly look like something other than a nation of John
Connors to those living under the Predators. It may not matter if the
joysticks and consoles on those advanced machines are somewhat
antiquated; to others, we are now the terminators of the planet,
implacable machine assassins.

True, we can't send our drones into the past to wipe out the young
Ayman al-Zawahiri in Cairo or the teenage Osama bin Laden speeding down
some Saudi road in his gray Mercedes sedan. True, the UAV enthusiasts,
who are already imagining all-drone wars run by "ethical" machines, may
never see anything like their fantasies come to pass. Still, the fact
that without the help of a single advanced cyborg we are already in the
process of creating a Terminator planet should give us pause for
thought... or not.

[Note for TomDispatch readers: I particularly recommend the Christopher Drew New York Times piece cited above, "Drones Are Weapons of Choice in Fighting Qaeda," which gives a vivid picture of our drone wars at home. In addition, let me offer a small bow to Nick Turse, who, back in 2004, began writing at this site about the way our government has restricted
blue-skies dreaming to the military. To keep up on drones and drone
warfare, there is no better place to start than Noah Shachtman's Danger Room blog at Wired.com. It's a must. To keep track of drone strikes as they occur in our world, keep an eye on Antiwar.com.
And a final note of thanks to Christopher Holmes, whose keen
copyediting eye makes this process so much less embarrassing than it
might otherwise be.]

© 2023 TomDispatch.com