4 ms·

Ironically, no. Drones enabled the US to kill 4,000 people in Pakistan--people who arguably would not have been killed without that tech.

by titzer 9y ago

walshemj 9y ago
Your assuming that other means would not have been used eg dumb bombs from b52's. Or SF teams lazing targets for PGM's
- posix_me_less 9y ago
  Which is a very plausible assumption, considering dropping traditional bombs is much more inconvenient for the killers. With drone attacks, the cost and political fallout is minimal. And with more meal available, the appetite grows - the killers will use the new capabilities to do more killing.
hahajk 9y ago
Those people would almost certainly been targeted by manned jets. The US still sends out tons of manned combat missions (as many as 20 sorties a day from a single carrier according to this article: https://news.usni.org/2018/03/19/u-s-evolving-middle-east-operations-carrier-strike-group-isis-loses-ground-iranian-drones-make-daily-appearances https://news.usni.org/2018/03/19/u-s-evolving-middle-east-op...)
- titzer 9y ago
  > Those people would almost certainly been targeted by manned jets. I doubt it, considering the cost of manned jets and their limited time-on-target, political fallout, risk to pilots, etc. Drones are stealthy, silent, cheap to operate, have long time on target, and have both surveillance and attack capabilities. Drones are the key enabler for this completely unprecedented type of pervasive, constant warfare. People who want to make drones "more efficient" at this job are totally missing the point. Making them even more efficient just means they'll be even more widely deployed, which makes the whole problem even worse. The wider deployment completely dwarfs any savings from "less collateral damage". We need to stop drone warfare, not make it better. Return to the rule of law.
oh_sigh 9y ago
Are seat belts and airbags and other safety measures worth developing, when 30,000 people die per year from cars?

Ironically, no. Drones enabled the US to kill 4,000 people in Pakistan--people who arguably would not have been killed without that tech.

by titzer 9y ago

Ironically, no. Drones enabled the US to kill 4,000 people in Pakistan--people who arguably would not have been killed without that tech.

walshemj 9y ago

Your assuming that other means would not have been used eg dumb bombs from b52's. Or SF teams lazing targets for PGM's

posix_me_less 9y ago
Which is a very plausible assumption, considering dropping traditional bombs is much more inconvenient for the killers. With drone attacks, the cost and political fallout is minimal. And with more meal available, the appetite grows - the killers will use the new capabilities to do more killing.

hahajk 9y ago

Those people would almost certainly been targeted by manned jets. The US still sends out tons of manned combat missions (as many as 20 sorties a day from a single carrier according to this article: https://news.usni.org/2018/03/19/u-s-evolving-middle-east-operations-carrier-strike-group-isis-loses-ground-iranian-drones-make-daily-appearances https://news.usni.org/2018/03/19/u-s-evolving-middle-east-op...)

titzer 9y ago
> Those people would almost certainly been targeted by manned jets. I doubt it, considering the cost of manned jets and their limited time-on-target, political fallout, risk to pilots, etc. Drones are stealthy, silent, cheap to operate, have long time on target, and have both surveillance and attack capabilities. Drones are the key enabler for this completely unprecedented type of pervasive, constant warfare. People who want to make drones "more efficient" at this job are totally missing the point. Making them even more efficient just means they'll be even more widely deployed, which makes the whole problem even worse. The wider deployment completely dwarfs any savings from "less collateral damage". We need to stop drone warfare, not make it better. Return to the rule of law.

oh_sigh 9y ago

Are seat belts and airbags and other safety measures worth developing, when 30,000 people die per year from cars?