Which are great for open warfare, but are not surgical enough to fight an insurgency. As we have found in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Iraq.
There is already some pretty technical and well thought out doctrine about Drone defeat operations that has been put out by Al Qaeda. Granted it does not focus on survivability, but it completely twists the drone program to their advantage.
There is a reason that Barrack Obama's drone operations have killed over a thousand civilians (very very conservatively actual estimates are close to 3,000) , 176 of them being children. Insurgents may be fanatical, but they are not stupid. For every targeted drone strike there is "acceptable collateral damage" of 5-10 personnel ( which ends up being closer to 50-1 in places like Pakistan). Either way Drone strikes are proven to be the greatest recruiting tool in Pakistan, Yemen etc.
Bottom line, the day our own govt. drone strikes a city, or there is any "collateral damage" is the day that a majority of Americans turn against their govt.
My point is drones are a far more surgical form of aerial warfare
comparatively speaking when talking about carpet bombers, fire bombers in
WWII and the Vietnam War.
One of the most important aspects of warfare is
preserving the life of your own men, while killing those of the enemy.If a general risks the lives of his own men
when a safer alternative exists, then that general is not acting in their best
interest.
rick the only reason obama has used more drones than bush is because the technology has advanced since 2000..
Obama understands that placing soliders on the ground requires much more political problems than using drones.
The US has only declared war 5 times..
Also collateral damage is down according to UN estimates in terms of comparing it again to other forms of aerial and high artillery strikes.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
Which are great for open warfare, but are not surgical enough to fight an insurgency. As we have found in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Iraq.
There is already some pretty technical and well thought out doctrine about Drone defeat operations that has been put out by Al Qaeda. Granted it does not focus on survivability, but it completely twists the drone program to their advantage.
There is a reason that Barrack Obama's drone operations have killed over a thousand civilians (very very conservatively actual estimates are close to 3,000) , 176 of them being children. Insurgents may be fanatical, but they are not stupid. For every targeted drone strike there is "acceptable collateral damage" of 5-10 personnel ( which ends up being closer to 50-1 in places like Pakistan). Either way Drone strikes are proven to be the greatest recruiting tool in Pakistan, Yemen etc.
Bottom line, the day our own govt. drone strikes a city, or there is any "collateral damage" is the day that a majority of Americans turn against their govt.
My point is drones are a far more surgical form of aerial warfare
comparatively speaking when talking about carpet bombers, fire bombers in
WWII and the Vietnam War.
One of the most important aspects of warfare is
preserving the life of your own men, while killing those of the enemy.If a general risks the lives of his own men
when a safer alternative exists, then that general is not acting in their best
interest.
rick the only reason obama has used more drones than bush is because the technology has advanced since 2000..
Obama understands that placing soliders on the ground requires much more political problems than using drones.
The US has only declared war 5 times..
Also collateral damage is down according to UN estimates in terms of comparing it again to other forms of aerial and high artillery strikes.
Obama is using drones because they exist in a grey area where he can still get away with running assassinations in countries we are not at war with, because international law has not caught up to the technology.
We could not send kill teams into Pakistan with the frequency that we send drones. Just look at how much animosity the kill team that took out bin ladden created.
That being said you make a valid point of the fact that a good general spares his men when possible, absolutely true.
But on another note, if we are looking at theoretical warfare, a good general should also understand that an assassination that takes on average 50 non-targets to every 1 target, is a blunt instrument. I think a lot of exaggeration is being used when talking about the "surgical nature" of drone warfare.
0
Let's be 100% honest with each other.
Obama is using drones because they exist in a grey area where he can still get away with running assassinations in countries we are not at war with, because international law has not caught up to the technology.
We could not send kill teams into Pakistan with the frequency that we send drones. Just look at how much animosity the kill team that took out bin ladden created.
That being said you make a valid point of the fact that a good general spares his men when possible, absolutely true.
But on another note, if we are looking at theoretical warfare, a good general should also understand that an assassination that takes on average 50 non-targets to every 1 target, is a blunt instrument. I think a lot of exaggeration is being used when talking about the "surgical nature" of drone warfare.
Meh.. It is probably a little bit of both but Obama and the CIA have certainly taken advantge of this program beacuse of the fact that our domestic laws cant really hold our president in contempt but also you're right about International Law.
But that's also because we haven't signed onto the ICC which would prosecute our leaders. Thank God.
But you have to think that this technology is only going to get better!
When I mean its surgical and others say its surgical you have to compare it to other forms of aerial and military artillery warfare. For instance you could certainly make an argument that during the Kosovo War had the US deployed drones we might have saved a significantly higher amount of civilians than the way were bombing the garbage out of them with our standard form of bombing campaigns..
0
Meh.. It is probably a little bit of both but Obama and the CIA have certainly taken advantge of this program beacuse of the fact that our domestic laws cant really hold our president in contempt but also you're right about International Law.
But that's also because we haven't signed onto the ICC which would prosecute our leaders. Thank God.
But you have to think that this technology is only going to get better!
When I mean its surgical and others say its surgical you have to compare it to other forms of aerial and military artillery warfare. For instance you could certainly make an argument that during the Kosovo War had the US deployed drones we might have saved a significantly higher amount of civilians than the way were bombing the garbage out of them with our standard form of bombing campaigns..
money, as we've seen police departments are already using drones as well has DHS on the borders..
US soliders going AWOL is something very different. Point is this again.... how is it a fantasy to believe that US government would over power ordinary citizens.??
Stiln, i know you're boxed, so you can't respond to this, but i'll respond anyway. I was not aware of police surveillance drones. I did know about drones on the Mexican border to track people.
These drones don't blow up people though. They are surveillance drones only. I'm pissed off. My back got all sweaty thinking about this subject.
Unless the POTUS wants to end up like, Muammar Gaddafi, the government would be wise not to try and target American citizens with drone missile strikes in the United States.
After what i just read, it looks like the line is pretty close to being crossed. We need Americans like Gary Johnson and Ron Paul to get this shiit stopped, NOW!
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
money, as we've seen police departments are already using drones as well has DHS on the borders..
US soliders going AWOL is something very different. Point is this again.... how is it a fantasy to believe that US government would over power ordinary citizens.??
Stiln, i know you're boxed, so you can't respond to this, but i'll respond anyway. I was not aware of police surveillance drones. I did know about drones on the Mexican border to track people.
These drones don't blow up people though. They are surveillance drones only. I'm pissed off. My back got all sweaty thinking about this subject.
Unless the POTUS wants to end up like, Muammar Gaddafi, the government would be wise not to try and target American citizens with drone missile strikes in the United States.
After what i just read, it looks like the line is pretty close to being crossed. We need Americans like Gary Johnson and Ron Paul to get this shiit stopped, NOW!
Holy crap, even republicans support drones in the US on American citizens. I would've thought all republicans would be against this. I hear them preach about the constitution all the time.
Is there any one running for president in either party against this?
Holy crap, even republicans support drones in the US on American citizens. I would've thought all republicans would be against this. I hear them preach about the constitution all the time.
Is there any one running for president in either party against this?
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
