Drone strikes. Whats your opinion

I don't see whats the big deal with drone strikes, they save american lives , but i would like to hear OTs opinion.

With luck we can get some discussions going.

In and of themselves, they are fundamentally no different than airstrikes other than removing the pilot from the cockpit, and insofar airstrikes are necessary, I support them. That said, I think greater extents to avoid innocent deaths should be exercised.

I don't like em, I think it takes the psychological aspect of war out.Fightingfan

Care to explain in more detail?

I think they're ok if there is no collateral damage in the form of innocents hurt or killed.  

they're so impersonal..its like a videogame

that almost everything should be operated remotely.

tanks, fighter jets, infantry, supply vehicles, bombers,  you name it and it should be a remotely piloted vehicle  within reasonable limits.

getting rid of life support and the room that the operators  take  up would make for a new generation of military hardware that would put make all others obsolete almost overnight.

Use them on the border.

I oppose them for the same reason I oppose air and missile strikes.  It takes away the risk and makes the decision to attack too simple.  Taking lethal action is supposed to be a difficult decision to make.  The political fallout of headlines screaming "US SOLDIERS DEAD" is an important counter-balance; it helps decision-makers ask themselves if they're really doing the right thing.

I think they're ok if there is no collateral damage in the form of innocents hurt or killed.  

hartsickdiscipl

you can't even keep friendly fire incidents from happening much less end war  that kills civilians.

tough for me to blame civilian killing on drones when it is a byproduct of every conflict that has  ever occurred since the dawn of time.

Use them on the border.

Jebus213

on the mexicans?

illegal immigration is the single greatest thing that's ever happened to this country. Its cheap labour that eventually leaves, what could be better?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I think they're ok if there is no collateral damage in the form of innocents hurt or killed.  

Riverwolf007

you can't even keep friendly fire incidents from happening much less end war  that kills civilians.

tough for me to blame civilian killing on drones when it is a byproduct of every conflict that has  ever occurred since the dawn of time.

Then they're not ok, are they?

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

Use them on the border.

frannkzappa

on the mexicans?

illegal immigration is the single greatest thing that's ever happened to this country. Its cheap labour that eventually leaves, what could be better?

I was joking, but when you think about it... Who's going to be looking for those jobs during bad economic times and high-unemployment?

I oppose them for the same reason I oppose air and missile strikes. It takes away the risk and makes the decision to attack too simple. Taking lethal action is supposed to be a difficult decision to make. The political fallout of headlines screaming "US SOLDIERS DEAD" is an important counter-balance; it helps decision-makers ask themselves if they're really doing the right thing.

Oleg_Huzwog

I for one would like to kill the enemy with minimal risk. Also ease of decision is a great war asset.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I think they're ok if there is no collateral damage in the form of innocents hurt or killed.  

hartsickdiscipl

you can't even keep friendly fire incidents from happening much less end war  that kills civilians.

tough for me to blame civilian killing on drones when it is a byproduct of every conflict that has  ever occurred since the dawn of time.

Then they're not ok, are they?

it's not anything to condone or be proud of.

now with that being said it is going to happen and it seems silly to me to put forth some kind of pie in the sky goal of  zero civilian casualties when we all know that by the very act of war you are 100% assured that civilians are going to end up in the crosshairs and die.

maybe with advanced pilot less vehicles  the urge to shoot first will be blunted since the pilot is in no danger.

drones could easily reduce civilian casualties if we ever get to the point we can replace tanks and infantry and whatever   since all you are sacrificing is a thing and not the operator.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

Use them on the border.

Jebus213

on the mexicans?

illegal immigration is the single greatest thing that's ever happened to this country. Its cheap labour that eventually leaves, what could be better?

I was joking, but when you think about it... Who's going to be looking for those jobs during bad economic times and high-unemployment?

I have no respect for americans that need factory jobs if you are not willing to do better than that you are a failure.

we are a post industrial nation, those people are a cancer.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]that is impossible.

you can't even keep friendly fire incidents from happening much less end war  that kills civilians.

tough for me to blame civilian killing on drones when it is a byproduct of every conflict that has  ever occurred since the dawn of time.

Riverwolf007

Then they're not ok, are they?

it's not anything to condone or be proud of.

now with that being said it is going to happen and it seems silly to me to put forth some kind of pie in the sky goal of  zero civilian casualties when we all know that by the very act of war you are 100% assured that civilians are going to end up in the crosshairs and die.

maybe with advanced pilot less vehicles  the urge to shoot first will be blunted since the pilot is in no danger.

drones could easily reduce civilian casualties if we ever get to the point we can replace tanks and infantry and whatever   since all you are sacrificing is a thing and not the operator.

I was referring to the idea of "acceptable collateral damage."  Obviously some unintended injuries and deaths occur in war.  My statement was meant to refer to a conscious decision being made to hit a target with knowledge that you will definitely hit innocents.  I believe that this shouldn't be necessary with the technology that we have today.  

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

on the mexicans?

 

illegal immigration is the single greatest thing that's ever happened to this country. Its cheap labour that eventually leaves, what could be better?

frannkzappa

I was joking, but when you think about it... Who's going to be looking for those jobs during bad economic times and high-unemployment?

I have no respect for americans that need factory jobs if you are not willing to do better than that you are a failure.

we are a post industrial nation, those people are a cancer.

No.  Post industrial nations are a cancer.  

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

Then they're not ok, are they?

hartsickdiscipl

it's not anything to condone or be proud of.

now with that being said it is going to happen and it seems silly to me to put forth some kind of pie in the sky goal of  zero civilian casualties when we all know that by the very act of war you are 100% assured that civilians are going to end up in the crosshairs and die.

maybe with advanced pilot less vehicles  the urge to shoot first will be blunted since the pilot is in no danger.

drones could easily reduce civilian casualties if we ever get to the point we can replace tanks and infantry and whatever   since all you are sacrificing is a thing and not the operator.

I was referring to the idea of "acceptable collateral damage."  Obviously some unintended injuries and deaths occur in war.  My statement was meant to refer to a conscious decision being made to hit a target with knowledge that you will definitely hit innocents.  I believe that this shouldn't be necessary with the technology that we have today.  

hell the allies  burnt dresden to the ground during ww2 and killed what? 75,000 to a 100,000 civilians?

they are currently doing exactly what you are saying they should do.

using advanced technology and intel to reduce civilian deaths.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

on the mexicans?

 

illegal immigration is the single greatest thing that's ever happened to this country. Its cheap labour that eventually leaves, what could be better?

frannkzappa

I was joking, but when you think about it... Who's going to be looking for those jobs during bad economic times and high-unemployment?

I have no respect for americans that need factory jobs if you are not willing to do better than that you are a failure.

we are a post industrial nation, those people are a cancer.

Yeah, fvck jobs, outsource everything to China, India, and Taiwan. We don't need them. :|

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]war as a whole is not ok. 

it's not anything to condone or be proud of.

now with that being said it is going to happen and it seems silly to me to put forth some kind of pie in the sky goal of  zero civilian casualties when we all know that by the very act of war you are 100% assured that civilians are going to end up in the crosshairs and die.

maybe with advanced pilot less vehicles  the urge to shoot first will be blunted since the pilot is in no danger.

drones could easily reduce civilian casualties if we ever get to the point we can replace tanks and infantry and whatever   since all you are sacrificing is a thing and not the operator.

Riverwolf007

I was referring to the idea of "acceptable collateral damage."  Obviously some unintended injuries and deaths occur in war.  My statement was meant to refer to a conscious decision being made to hit a target with knowledge that you will definitely hit innocents.  I believe that this shouldn't be necessary with the technology that we have today.  

hell the allies  burnt dresden to the ground during ww2 and killed what? 75,000 to a 100,000 civilians?

they are currently doing exactly what you are saying they should do.

using advanced technology and intel to reduce civilian deaths.

The bombing of Dresden is still criticized by many as a brutal and possibly unnecessary action.  

If what you're saying is true, and collateral damage is lower today than at any other time, it's still not nearly good enough.   

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

 

I was referring to the idea of "acceptable collateral damage."  Obviously some unintended injuries and deaths occur in war.  My statement was meant to refer to a conscious decision being made to hit a target with knowledge that you will definitely hit innocents.  I believe that this shouldn't be necessary with the technology that we have today.  

hartsickdiscipl

hell the allies  burnt dresden to the ground during ww2 and killed what? 75,000 to a 100,000 civilians?

they are currently doing exactly what you are saying they should do.

using advanced technology and intel to reduce civilian deaths.

The bombing of Dresden is still criticized by many as a brutal and possibly unnecessary action.  

If what you're saying is true, and collateral damage is lower today than at any other time, it's still not nearly good enough.   

to me it's basically a government hiring a hitman to get some people out of the way which on the one hand leads me to think of them as obviously immoral. on the other hand, sometimes you need to get your hands dirty to get a job done. but mostly i think of them as immoral and at some point you're going to reap what you sow when you disregard the fundamental values of how we as people strive to treat each other, especially when you also use these values to justify these actions.

In and of themselves, they are fundamentally no different than airstrikes other than removing the pilot from the cockpit.

coolbeans90

i've fought in so many wars, conquered many lands and caused huge pixelated destruction and think of airstrikes as very different. aren't they normally aimed at strategical targets? i would think they are done from greater altitudes and have nowhere near the precision to target a single individual.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

I was joking, but when you think about it... Who's going to be looking for those jobs during bad economic times and high-unemployment?

Jebus213

I have no respect for americans that need factory jobs if you are not willing to do better than that you are a failure.

we are a post industrial nation, those people are a cancer.

Yeah, fvck jobs, outsource everything to China, India, and Taiwan. We don't need them. :|

Wrong... scarcity based economics is no longer required, the USA could quite easily become self sufficient if it would just abandon the price system.

to me it's basically a government hiring a hitman to get some people out of the way which on the one hand leads me to think of them as obviously immoral. on the other hand, sometimes you need to get your hands dirty to get a job done. but mostly i think of them as immoral and at some point you're going to reap what you sow when you disregard the fundamental values of how we as people strive to treat each other, especially when you also use these values to justify these actions.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

In and of themselves, they are fundamentally no different than airstrikes other than removing the pilot from the cockpit.

BLKR4330

i've fought in so many wars, conquered many lands and caused huge pixelated destruction and think of airstrikes as very different. aren't they normally aimed at strategical targets? i would think they are done from greater altitudes and have nowhere near the precision to target a single individual.

Why should "morality" have anything to do with war.

War is just a means to an end.

OP is a sucker of statist c0ck BossPerson

Yes, i am a proud statist much in the same vein as Plato.

The fact they are autonomous is a problem. A human mind should be involved in the murdering/killing of another human being during war.Zeviander

The fact they are autonomous is a problem. A human mind should be involved in the murdering/killing of another human being during war.Zeviander

Except they aren't, there is always a human at the controls.

The fact they are autonomous is a problem. A human mind should be involved in the murdering/killing of another human being during war.Zeviander

they sometimes fly on their own during the travel time to the target while an operator watches the screens,  then 100% of the time they are taken over by a human that pulls the trigger.

also the pilot does not make the decision to fire, just like everyone else they have to get permission to fire from a higher up.

The fact they are autonomous is a problem. A human mind should be involved in the murdering/killing of another human being during war.Zeviander

The fact they are autonomous is a problem. A human mind should be involved in the murdering/killing of another human being during war.Zeviander

]...I don't think they kill on their own, there's someone behind them controlling them. As for the question, I don't have a problem with their existence and use per se, but the problem is in the way the U.S is using them without even a shred of responsibility. The use of drones is one of the reasons I give people a fair shot when they try to tell me Obama is worse than Bush. BossPerson

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]]...I don't think they kill on their own, there's someone behind them controlling them. As for the question, I don't have a problem with their existence and use per se, but the problem is in the way the U.S is using them without even a shred of responsibility. The use of drones is one of the reasons I give people a fair shot when they try to tell me Obama is worse than Bush. Zeviander

not even the pilot has permission to fire it.

they have to get permission from up the chain of command.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]]...I don't think they kill on their own, there's someone behind them controlling them. As for the question, I don't have a problem with their existence and use per se, but the problem is in the way the U.S is using them without even a shred of responsibility. The use of drones is one of the reasons I give people a fair shot when they try to tell me Obama is worse than Bush. Zeviander

I don't see whats the big deal with drone strikes, they save american lives , but i would like to hear OTs opinion.

 

With luck we can get some discussions going.

frannkzappa

It's wrong, it's just wrong.  I don't care who the president is.  It's wrong.

If you think lives are being saved you are so misinformed.  It's so wrong it legitimizes terrorism. 

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

I don't see whats the big deal with drone strikes, they save american lives , but i would like to hear OTs opinion.

 

With luck we can get some discussions going.

Audacitron

It's wrong, it's just wrong.  I don't care who the president is.  It's wrong.

If you think lives are being saved you are so misinformed.  It's so wrong it legitimizes terrorism. 

not even the pilot has permission to fire it. they have to get permission from up the chain of command.Riverwolf007

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

I don't see whats the big deal with drone strikes, they save american lives , but i would like to hear OTs opinion.

With luck we can get some discussions going.

Audacitron

It's wrong, it's just wrong. I don't care who the president is. It's wrong.

If you think lives are being saved you are so misinformed. It's so wrong it legitimizes terrorism.

How is it wrong? the point of war is to kill the other guy.

i've fought in so many wars, conquered many lands and caused huge pixelated destruction and think of airstrikes as very different. aren't they normally aimed at strategical targets? i would think they are done from greater altitudes and have nowhere near the precision to target a single individual.

BLKR4330

Erm, I'd imagine that targeting individual targets could easily be done by reducing altitude (it's not like the people we're using drones on have srs AA) and guided weapons systems could easily reduce the need to do even that.

fight moar wars

a cowards way to fight a war

zomg! these monsters!

The mantra that the Reaper pilots repeat is 'zero expectations of civilian casualties. They are forbidden to attack buildings if there are women and children in the area and they avoid targeting property. In Afghanistan village life, Taliban fighters are never far away from women and children.

In internal reporting the RAF has dropped the term 'compound because it obscures the simple truth that these are houses. As one senior commander told me, 'Were trying to get it into the guys heads that this is not compound no 28, its 34 Acacia Drive so you dont hit it.

According to Oz, 'Well spend hours watching some guy. There have been plenty of times when Ive had a clearly identified enemy combatant under my crosshairs and I havent been able to fire at him because hes in a village and there are civilians around. If theres any doubt, we wont fire. Apart from the tragedy of wounding or killing an innocent civilian, it plays straight into the hands of the enemy for propaganda its a double whammy. You have to wait for your opportunity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9552547/The-air-force-men-who-fly-drones-in-Afghanistan-by-remote-control.html

also for zev. same site.

He also bridles at the suggestion that UAVs leave moral judgments to machines. 'The plane cannot start, cannot fly and cannot release a weapon without us doing it. Human beings are in the cockpit exactly the same as when I was flying a Tornado. We just happen to be 8,000 miles away from the plane.

The fact they are autonomous is a problem. A human mind should be involved in the murdering/killing of another human being during war.Zeviander

Because a guy pressing a button from thousands of feet in the air is ever so much more up close and personal.

a cowards way to fight a war

osirisx3

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]not even the pilot has permission to fire it. they have to get permission from up the chain of command.Zeviander