3 ms·

As a psychological weapon, this has changed the rules dramatically. You can imagine that combatants in the firing zone now have an added thing to think about.

As a psychological weapon, this has changed the rules dramatically. You can imagine that combatants in the firing zone now have an added thing to think about. Not just watching buildings for snipers and scouring the road ahead and beside them for IEDs, they now have to have attention aloft to see/hear drone activity as well. Spreading (the) enemy attention is highly effective. And don't discount low power explosives. A couple of friends of mine who are in the army have said that most weaponry is designed to maim rather than kill. They explained that if you kill a soldier, you take one man out of the battle (and make his comrades angry & vengeful to boot). If you wound him badly - you take two men out - the wounded soldier, PLUS the guy who has to stop what he is doing to care for and patch him up.

anigbrowl 10y ago
Very true. Plus don't underestimate the disastrous effect on morale of having 'your' weapons turned against you, and finding yourself in a victim position that you have indirectly imposed upon others on many occasions. Once American soldiers start coming under drone fire regularly, they will be massively demoralized by the realization that much of the world considers the US to the be The Bad Guys.
- cyberferret 10y ago
  I agree with your assessment here. However, I didn't want to voice it because it would lead to a less that savoury place, like other drone threads have. But I do appreciate the irony that a weapon when wielded from one side is an effective platform for swift and immediate justice & retribution, but when eventually wielded by the opposing side, is suddenly an evil, sneaky and underhanded thing indeed.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    I've got very conflicted feelings about it myself. On the one hand, precision drone bombing is preferable to the older approaches of using bombers or conventional ICBMs. The ideal would be to simply stop bombing people, of course, but that would only last until such time as there were a substantial terrorist attack on American soil. As long as military engagement remains a political reality, I prefer it come in as low a cost in human life as possible. But it's arguable that the second-order costs end up being higher. At the same time I think it's inevitable given the available technology.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      The US Army has a project they're calling " Autonomous Rotorcraft Sniper System" that's designed to kill just the person they're after. It's essentially a tiny remote controlled helicopter with high-precision sensors and a stabilized rifle. They started flying a prototype in 2009, but I can't tell from public sources if they ever got it to work.
rangibaby 10y ago
> Spreading (the) enemy attention is highly effective. And don't discount low power explosives. A couple of friends of mine who are in the army have said that most weaponry is designed to maim rather than kill. They explained that if you kill a soldier, you take one man out of the battle (and make his comrades angry & vengeful to boot). If you wound him badly - you take two men out - the wounded soldier, PLUS the guy who has to stop what he is doing to care for and patch him up. This was the (effective) VC strategy during the war in Vietnam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punji_stick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punji_stick

anigbrowl 10y ago

Very true. Plus don't underestimate the disastrous effect on morale of having 'your' weapons turned against you, and finding yourself in a victim position that you have indirectly imposed upon others on many occasions. Once American soldiers start coming under drone fire regularly, they will be massively demoralized by the realization that much of the world considers the US to the be The Bad Guys.

cyberferret 10y ago
I agree with your assessment here. However, I didn't want to voice it because it would lead to a less that savoury place, like other drone threads have. But I do appreciate the irony that a weapon when wielded from one side is an effective platform for swift and immediate justice & retribution, but when eventually wielded by the opposing side, is suddenly an evil, sneaky and underhanded thing indeed.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  I've got very conflicted feelings about it myself. On the one hand, precision drone bombing is preferable to the older approaches of using bombers or conventional ICBMs. The ideal would be to simply stop bombing people, of course, but that would only last until such time as there were a substantial terrorist attack on American soil. As long as military engagement remains a political reality, I prefer it come in as low a cost in human life as possible. But it's arguable that the second-order costs end up being higher. At the same time I think it's inevitable given the available technology.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    The US Army has a project they're calling " Autonomous Rotorcraft Sniper System" that's designed to kill just the person they're after. It's essentially a tiny remote controlled helicopter with high-precision sensors and a stabilized rifle. They started flying a prototype in 2009, but I can't tell from public sources if they ever got it to work.

rangibaby 10y ago

> Spreading (the) enemy attention is highly effective. And don't discount low power explosives. A couple of friends of mine who are in the army have said that most weaponry is designed to maim rather than kill. They explained that if you kill a soldier, you take one man out of the battle (and make his comrades angry & vengeful to boot). If you wound him badly - you take two men out - the wounded soldier, PLUS the guy who has to stop what he is doing to care for and patch him up. This was the (effective) VC strategy during the war in Vietnam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punji_stick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punji_stick