3 ms·

Don't get me wrong, I fully subscribe to the school of thought that he's a murderer, but honestly, drones fighting drones sounds pretty good.

Iv 9y ago
It terms of life saved, I totally agree. In terms of social progress, this causes a big problem: military power, until now, depended in big parts on having military people on your side. So sure, they can be corrupt, swayed by a more or less evil ideology or just plain racist, but in order to be a leader, you needed to at least satisfy a big group of people. And it was easier if it were the majority. Automated warfare makes war and military power purely capital-based. That just seem wrong. And also, do you really think that drones will be solely used on other peoples' drones?
- staunch 9y ago
  This already happened in the 2003 Iraq invasion. It was wildly unpopular, so Cheney & Gang crafted a bullshit strategy around using very few troops and a lot more technology. It never made sense. They just wanted a war and knew they had to placate members of the military and people concerned about a Vietnam-style draft. The next time their strategy might actually succeed. Once the U.S. military has a drone army capable of patrolling every street in Iraq 24/7/365. > In a January 2003 CBS poll, 64% of Americans had approved of military action against Iraq; however, 63% wanted Bush to find a diplomatic solution rather than go to war, and 62% believed the threat of terrorism directed against the U.S. would increase due to war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
  - adventured 9y ago
    It's interesting the extent to which Americans didn't support going into Iraq and knocking over Saddam during the first Gulf War. The widely supported essentially what Bush did, in pushing their forces out of Kuwait and semi-crippling Iraq's military capabilities (no fly zones, sanctions, etc). The American people had to be terrified into Iraq part 2. They had to be lied to constantly, abused with terrorism color codes on a weekly basis, constantly told their lives were in danger at the airport, lied to about the threat from WMDs, and the warhawks had to use 9/11 on a constant basis as a rallying cry to drive blind patriotism and to auto-silence anyone that would stand against it. The authorities had to put on one helluva an aggressive propaganda effort to convince Americans to allow it. Contrast that with the non-existent support for a large military action in Syria (invasion or otherwise), which Obama's Administration floated and quickly pulled away from. The American people are very war sick at this point, fortunately.
- noj7 9y ago
  Why is it not capital based already? Most people who sign up I am guessing do it because they have no other great options available. I don't know the stats but I wouldn't be surprised if most militaries of the world are filled with people from rural areas.
freedomben 9y ago
This reminds me of an episode called "A Taste of Armageddon" from that documentary called "Star Trek." As long as we don't have to go into "disintegration booths" then I agree :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Iv 9y ago

It terms of life saved, I totally agree. In terms of social progress, this causes a big problem: military power, until now, depended in big parts on having military people on your side. So sure, they can be corrupt, swayed by a more or less evil ideology or just plain racist, but in order to be a leader, you needed to at least satisfy a big group of people. And it was easier if it were the majority. Automated warfare makes war and military power purely capital-based. That just seem wrong. And also, do you really think that drones will be solely used on other peoples' drones?

staunch 9y ago
This already happened in the 2003 Iraq invasion. It was wildly unpopular, so Cheney & Gang crafted a bullshit strategy around using very few troops and a lot more technology. It never made sense. They just wanted a war and knew they had to placate members of the military and people concerned about a Vietnam-style draft. The next time their strategy might actually succeed. Once the U.S. military has a drone army capable of patrolling every street in Iraq 24/7/365. > In a January 2003 CBS poll, 64% of Americans had approved of military action against Iraq; however, 63% wanted Bush to find a diplomatic solution rather than go to war, and 62% believed the threat of terrorism directed against the U.S. would increase due to war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
- adventured 9y ago
  It's interesting the extent to which Americans didn't support going into Iraq and knocking over Saddam during the first Gulf War. The widely supported essentially what Bush did, in pushing their forces out of Kuwait and semi-crippling Iraq's military capabilities (no fly zones, sanctions, etc). The American people had to be terrified into Iraq part 2. They had to be lied to constantly, abused with terrorism color codes on a weekly basis, constantly told their lives were in danger at the airport, lied to about the threat from WMDs, and the warhawks had to use 9/11 on a constant basis as a rallying cry to drive blind patriotism and to auto-silence anyone that would stand against it. The authorities had to put on one helluva an aggressive propaganda effort to convince Americans to allow it. Contrast that with the non-existent support for a large military action in Syria (invasion or otherwise), which Obama's Administration floated and quickly pulled away from. The American people are very war sick at this point, fortunately.
noj7 9y ago
Why is it not capital based already? Most people who sign up I am guessing do it because they have no other great options available. I don't know the stats but I wouldn't be surprised if most militaries of the world are filled with people from rural areas.

freedomben 9y ago

This reminds me of an episode called "A Taste of Armageddon" from that documentary called "Star Trek." As long as we don't have to go into "disintegration booths" then I agree :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]