3 ms·

> Drone strikes, as they are used, are a more evil way of taking out identified targets of other nationalities. I find the concept of a nation state summarily a

> Drone strikes, as they are used, are a more evil way of taking out identified targets of other nationalities. I find the concept of a nation state summarily assassinating people a bit troubling, but drone strikes make it even worse by making it imprecise and cheap. There's no significant difference between a drone-strike and a conventional airstrike by a manned aircraft, at lest when it comes to targeting, precision, etc. Drone-strikes might even be better than conventional airstrikes because the pilot may have less workload (therefore more focus) during the strike part, meaning fewer errors and mistakes.

Bartweiss 8y ago
> There's no significant difference between a drone-strike and a conventional airstrike by a manned aircraft, at lest when it comes to targeting, precision, etc. But there's a significant difference in the sense that drones are the only way these strikes are conducted. Manned strikes would be more risky, since they expose a pilot, and less practical because manned aircraft can't be "parked" over a target for anywhere near as long as a drone. And whatever the legality of the situation, the political reality is that manned strikes look substantially more like an act of war. So the difference is that many of these strikes wouldn't happen without drones. It's not about how the bomb is delivered, it's about whether we're assassinating people without a declaration of war in the first place.
- nunya213 8y ago
  Sounds like your issue is with the current political system not with drones. Direct your anger to the appropriate places.
  - Bartweiss 8y ago
    I'm not angry at drones, any more than someone who opposed the V2 bombing of London was angry at rockets. I have been against politicians who support this, though every presidential nominee for at least 12 years has supported it. But political opposition isn't limited to the voting booth. If a horrible act can be blocked by means reduction then dissuading people from enabling the means is a way to change politics.

Bartweiss 8y ago

> There's no significant difference between a drone-strike and a conventional airstrike by a manned aircraft, at lest when it comes to targeting, precision, etc. But there's a significant difference in the sense that drones are the only way these strikes are conducted. Manned strikes would be more risky, since they expose a pilot, and less practical because manned aircraft can't be "parked" over a target for anywhere near as long as a drone. And whatever the legality of the situation, the political reality is that manned strikes look substantially more like an act of war. So the difference is that many of these strikes wouldn't happen without drones. It's not about how the bomb is delivered, it's about whether we're assassinating people without a declaration of war in the first place.

nunya213 8y ago
Sounds like your issue is with the current political system not with drones. Direct your anger to the appropriate places.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  I'm not angry at drones, any more than someone who opposed the V2 bombing of London was angry at rockets. I have been against politicians who support this, though every presidential nominee for at least 12 years has supported it. But political opposition isn't limited to the voting booth. If a horrible act can be blocked by means reduction then dissuading people from enabling the means is a way to change politics.