4 ms·
Hopefully it'll result in fewer innocent deaths. Though I can still see ways for this to go wrong. Become overconfident in our ability to hit a target and then
by astine 7y ago
Hopefully it'll result in fewer innocent deaths. Though I can still see ways for this to go wrong. Become overconfident in our ability to hit a target and then miss. Not to mention, a lot of the innocent casualties of American bombing haven't come from using bombs but from just picking the wrong target to begin with.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoSure, but if they miss (or pick the wrong target), it's still fewer innocent casualties.
- astine 7y agoOh sure. I'd rather they shoot this at someone than a fricken hellfire missile. But how much did it cost to develop? We still have the possibility that just assassinating people from the sky at all creates more terrorists than it kills. In which case we're expeding a lot of effort to solve the wrong problem.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoIt's my impression that the collateral damage was creating more terrorists. I'm not sure that just "death from above" of terrorists is the issue.
- xkcd-sucks 7y agoIn the absence of any really really convincing evidence to the contrary, it seems like remote control assassinations by a foreign power actively work against winning the hearts and minds of the local populace. Unless the locals getting assassinated are truly despised by everyone around them. After all, they have to take it as a matter of faith that they themselves can't possibly be "wrongly" targeted, and precedent suggests otherwise
- seriesf 7y agoJust to be clear on the terminology, the weapon we are discussing _is_ "a fricken hellfire missile".
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoBut without a hellfire warhead. The warhead it has is horrific enough, but a normal hellfire warhead is worse.