News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Problems with Drone Warfare

Started by SGOS, April 05, 2016, 09:20:49 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mike Cl

Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 05, 2016, 05:17:31 PM
Very bad analogy.

A drunk kills indiscriminately, the US doesn't. The US tries in every way possible it can muster to minimize damage. The fault is not with the US when the enemy hides among the civilians. And this terrorists' tactic is to make you to believe the US is also a terrorist organization, and you have taken the bait.
I beg to differ.  You need to pull the wool away from your eyes.  The USA is not pure as the driven snow.  I uses terror when it fights a way--every war, and especially the first one we fought.  And that, in itself, is not bad--if you are going to war you want to win it, and terror is one tactic to use.  Do you think the Germans or the Russians or the Japanese did not use civilians to hide their military activities?  Of course they did.  That is one of the first causalities of war--civilians.  There is no such thing as a clean war.  Not even WWII.  Do you not think the 'Shock and Awe' of the Bush administration was not a total declaration  of terror tactics????  Was not the civilians involved from the beginning?    To think the US does not use terror tactics is to have the deepest of rose colored glasses. 

Mind you, I am not anti-USA by nature.  I grew up around the US Army and served in it as well.  I want my country to be right and right every time.  But in this war on terror they are just wrong.  Using that term--War on Terror--they can excuse any and every type of military action they want, when they want to and where they want to.  And yes, that will cause hatred of the US to grow around the world.  And I find it to un-American to do this type of stuff--torture included.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 05, 2016, 04:59:58 PM
Kingdoms went to war with the king lead from the front. Better idea needed.

Not enough of them.  King Richard III died that way ... all kings and "war" Presidents should die that way.  But most of the time, kings led from the rear, same as the US in Vietnam.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 05, 2016, 07:23:01 PM
I beg to differ.  You need to pull the wool away from your eyes.  The USA is not pure as the driven snow.  I uses terror when it fights a way--every war, and especially the first one we fought.  And that, in itself, is not bad--if you are going to war you want to win it, and terror is one tactic to use.  Do you think the Germans or the Russians or the Japanese did not use civilians to hide their military activities?  Of course they did.  That is one of the first causalities of war--civilians.  There is no such thing as a clean war.  Not even WWII.  Do you not think the 'Shock and Awe' of the Bush administration was not a total declaration  of terror tactics????  Was not the civilians involved from the beginning?    To think the US does not use terror tactics is to have the deepest of rose colored glasses. 

Mind you, I am not anti-USA by nature.  I grew up around the US Army and served in it as well.  I want my country to be right and right every time.  But in this war on terror they are just wrong.  Using that term--War on Terror--they can excuse any and every type of military action they want, when they want to and where they want to.  And yes, that will cause hatred of the US to grow around the world.  And I find it to un-American to do this type of stuff--torture included.

No one is talking about a clean war. But you're comparing apples with oranges: what happened during WW2 and what is happening today requires completely different strategies. Now you have an enemy that hides among the civilians. The US has no choice but to target this enemy among that civilian population, and it will inadvertently kill civilians. But the US does not kill indiscriminately as you are claiming. It's not in their interest to do so as those casualties will produce more terrorists.

Recall it was Al Qaeda who declared war on the US, and not the other way around, and it did so because the US used Saudi Arabia to position certain troops, which the US had full consent from the SA government. That declaration of war by a group of terrorists is not legitimate from any point of view. It was based purely on some vague religious notion that no religion other than Islam should be present in the "sacred" land. Contrary to the Iraq war, this is not a war of choice on the part of the US.

Gawdzilla Sama

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 05, 2016, 07:06:44 PM
My point being that do you think it would be as likely we would go to war if Cheney and Bush had had to serve in a combat role?  And being led by the leader is a better system than we have now.
Kingdoms often fell when their leaders weren't up to leading men into combat. I think that means we'd be speaking Arabic right now.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

The Skeletal Atheist

What is war to the shooter is terrorism to the person getting shot at.
Some people need to be beaten with a smart stick.

Kein Mehrheit Fur Die Mitleid!

Kein Mitlied F�r Die Mehrheit!

Mike Cl

#35
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 06, 2016, 07:36:29 AM
No one is talking about a clean war. But you're comparing apples with oranges: what happened during WW2 and what is happening today requires completely different strategies. Now you have an enemy that hides among the civilians. The US has no choice but to target this enemy among that civilian population, and it will inadvertently kill civilians. But the US does not kill indiscriminately as you are claiming. It's not in their interest to do so as those casualties will produce more terrorists.

Recall it was Al Qaeda who declared war on the US, and not the other way around, and it did so because the US used Saudi Arabia to position certain troops, which the US had full consent from the SA government. That declaration of war by a group of terrorists is not legitimate from any point of view. It was based purely on some vague religious notion that no religion other than Islam should be present in the "sacred" land. Contrary to the Iraq war, this is not a war of choice on the part of the US.
Yes, all wars have different strategies and to a lesser extent different tactics.  Hiding among civilians isn't that new.  We did that in the American Revolution.  The US does not kill indiscriminately?  Really?  What was the Dresden fire bombing???  What was the two atomic bombs in Japan (I happen to think that was necessary, but it could easily be labeled indiscriminate)?  What was the Vietnam War?  And on and on.   I would very much like to think that we don't kill indiscriminately, but the facts say otherwise--and that saddens me.  The US also does not torture people--cheney and Bush will attest to that.  We don't put people on trial without sufficient evidence or keep them forever locked up without a trial--ask Bush and Cheney, they will attest to that. 

I'm well aware of why we took on the 'War on Terror'.  The neocons thought they could remake the Middle East in our image.  The first part of the Afgan war was to capture or kill Al Qaeda and especially Ben Ladin.  But when we had him and them in our sights, we let him go.  And Bush then told us he did not matter.  They went into Pakistan, and we could not go after them.  Bull--at that time we had enough of the world on our side we could have chased them anywhere they went and the world would have supported us.  But, instead, Bush and Cheney went into Iraq, with Shock and Awe--which was not indiscriminate killing--right?  And what did that have to do with terrorism???? Well, nothing.  Except it created the modern day terrorist groups that are against us.

Is terrorism based only on a religion, Islam?  Are there other factors in play that feed into the use of a religion such as Islam?  I would say so.  Islam is part of the problem.  But would not economic and social problems also be part of this terror movement?  I don't have any full answers, but our govt. should be working on all angles of this thing, not just the acts of terror themselves.  The problem is that we simply don't have a strategy for the ME--and without that, all the tactics in the world (such as drones) will not solve the problem. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Mike Cl

SGOS, I have no problem with the drone technology.  It is simply another tool of warfare.  And if one needs to go to war, it is good to have all the tools one needs.  It is how it is used that could pose problems.  The real question is whether or not this is an appropriate or productive tactic to use for the purposes it is being used for.  It is wrapped up in so much secrecy that the general public really can't tell what results the drone program is producing.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

SGOS

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 06, 2016, 01:06:38 PM
SGOS, I have no problem with the drone technology.  It is simply another tool of warfare.  And if one needs to go to war, it is good to have all the tools one needs.  It is how it is used that could pose problems.  The real question is whether or not this is an appropriate or productive tactic to use for the purposes it is being used for.  It is wrapped up in so much secrecy that the general public really can't tell what results the drone program is producing.
Right.  As with any war technology, the ethics are determined mostly by the implementation.  Actually, drone technology is a good idea.  I can't speak to how the technology is being implemented.  I suspect all reports by the government and the media and take them all with a grain of salt.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 06, 2016, 07:44:48 AM
Kingdoms often fell when their leaders weren't up to leading men into combat. I think that means we'd be speaking Arabic right now.
And kingdoms also fell because the leader led them into battle.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

josephpalazzo

#39
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 06, 2016, 01:03:33 PM
Yes, all wars have different strategies and to a lesser extent different tactics.  Hiding among civilians isn't that new.  We did that in the American Revolution.  The US does not kill indiscriminately?  Really?  What was the Dresden fire bombing???  What was the two atomic bombs in Japan (I happen to think that was necessary, but it could easily be labeled indiscriminate)?

You are ignoring history. The bombing in WW2 was not done indiscriminately, it was done on purpose. In Germany, because the German people never accepted that they had lost in WW1, so the Allies deliberately bombed German cities so that the Germans would never forget they were to lose this one. In Japan, they wanted to send a similar message knowing that the Japanese were too proud to surrender and only a total defeat would bring them to a surrender. But unlike in Germany, the US had the nukes and had estimated that a similar invasion of Japan that was done in Germany would cost more than one million American lives. The decision to nuke Japan was done on this calculation.

QuoteWhat was the Vietnam War?  And on and on. 

Again you're ignoring history as you would not lump the Vietnam war with WW2, as they are totally different situations. The US inherited that war from the French who had resisted to leave its former colony, and that resistance had galvanized around a communist party. This was the Cold War, and so far the Russians had captured half of Europe and was a global threat as it was everywhere - in South America, in the Middle East trying to destabilize those governments to turn them into a communist regime. The calculations then in Vietnam was that the communists would unfurl throughout South-East Asia unimpeded. Regardless that the US lost that war, the communists were in no shape to pursue any other war of expansion in South-East Asia. Nevertheless, the USSR attempted one final conquest in Afghanistan in the 1980's but failed, again due to the US role in defeating the Soviets. It had further consequences later on as the US was aiding the Muhajeens who became later on known as Al Qaeda, the same terrorist group who declared war on the US.


QuoteI would very much like to think that we don't kill indiscriminately, but the facts say otherwise--

The facts says otherwise but your knowledge of history is quite lacking.



QuoteI'm well aware of why we took on the 'War on Terror'.  The neocons thought they could remake the Middle East in our image.  The first part of the Afgan war was to capture or kill Al Qaeda and especially Ben Ladin.

Which part of "... it was Al Qaeda who declared war on the US, and not the other way around" don't you understand???

QuoteBut when we had him and them in our sights, we let him go.  And Bush then told us he did not matter.

It's irrelevant to your claim that the US kills indiscriminately. 


QuoteThey went into Pakistan, and we could not go after them.  Bull--at that time we had enough of the world on our side we could have chased them anywhere they went and the world would have supported us.  But, instead, Bush and Cheney went into Iraq, with Shock and Awe--which was not indiscriminate killing--right?  And what did that have to do with terrorism???? Well, nothing.  Except it created the modern day terrorist groups that are against us.

First you rail on the US for going into Iraq and Afghanistan, now you rail against the US for NOT going into Pakistan. You're not very consistent in your position.

QuoteIs terrorism based only on a religion, Islam?  Are there other factors in play that feed into the use of a religion such as Islam?  I would say so.  Islam is part of the problem.  But would not economic and social problems also be part of this terror movement?  I don't have any full answers, but our govt. should be working on all angles of this thing, not just the acts of terror themselves.  The problem is that we simply don't have a strategy for the ME--and without that, all the tactics in the world (such as drones) will not solve the problem. 

Sure, but it's not only the US which has no solution in the ME, no one else does. The US is stuck between a hard place and a rock. There was a movement to change regime in the ME as it happened during the Arab Spring of 2011, but that devolved quickly into Islamist regimes: Egypt voted for the Brotherhood, an Islamist party; Libya is a failed states as it is swarmed with Islamist factions and terrorist groups, while Syria is on the verge of collapse with dozens of factions fighting it out and ISIS capturing a good part of Syria and Iraq  - and you have 3 million Syrian refugees. Iraq is not doing better even though it had a lot of assistance from the US, but what did it do? It elected a Shiite government which has alienated the Sunny minority, pushing them towards ISIS. The rest of the ME is in disarray over Yemen, as it has become the country where Saudis and Iranians are fighting through proxy armies. The Obama administration has kept its involvement in the ME to a minimum so far: in Libya, it provided some assistance to the French; in Syria, it applied pressure to disarm Assad of his WMD's, in Iraq it regularly bombs ISIS position in the hope that the Iraqi army get enough mojo to defeat ISIS. The only bright spot is the deal with Iran, lifting the sanctions in the hope Iran abandons it nuclear weapon ambition - we really don't know how this will turn out. But no one has any real solution to a very complex situation. No one, not even Putin...


PopeyesPappy

Apparently balloons are a problem with drone warfare.

Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.

Unbeliever

Cool, now I'll have to buy a gross or so of balloons - and helium - just in case...



God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

stromboli

(Stromboli contemplates his time in the Navy shepherding 16 nuclear missiles around the Atlantic and Mediterranean; then recalls working on converting dumb bombs to GBU-12 smart bombs at Hill AFB)

Based on personal experience and being hands on with WMDs, I think on balance a drone might actually be less deadly overall in the right hands. The right hands. Which isn't saying 10 years from now downtown Brussels might be targeted by drones owned by the bad people.

Drones can be argued either way- more moral or less moral. More moral because you are targeting specific people or small groups versus massive collateral damage in other ways.

Less moral because now you are actively murdering individuals. You can call it what you want, but taking out the money guy of ISIS with a drone is assassination, pure and simple. The guy driving the drone can actually see what he is killing. I drove a sub capable of inflicting death on millions of people I would never see. More moral (?) because we were theoretically firing in retaliation.

You haven't mentioned assassination. That was also a method of changing things politically back in the day. So the difference between killing specific individuals versus mass slaughter, throw in some collateral damage because shit happens. But drone killing Obama now, that would be an act of terrorism. Rrrriight.

Apples and oranges. The morality of any weapon is academic. I would personally err to the side of a weapon that minimizes collateral and hits a specific, directed target versus nuking Kiev. Been there done that. Carry on.

Unbeliever

Quote from: stromboli on April 06, 2016, 06:23:04 PM
(Stromboli contemplates his time in the Navy shepherding 16 nuclear missiles around the Atlantic and Mediterranean; then recalls working on converting dumb bombs to GBU-12 smart bombs at Hill AFB)

I hope you don't have to kill us now...

:holdtears:
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

stromboli

Quote from: Unbeliever on April 06, 2016, 06:31:44 PM
I hope you don't have to kill us now...

:holdtears:

No sweat bro. You'd be dead already.  :biggrin: