3 ms·
Don't really know how to feel about this. On one hand, it could mean less collateral damage and fewer civilian casualties than drone strikes. Just yesterday,
by LewisVerstappen 5y ago
Don't really know how to feel about this.
On one hand, it could mean less collateral damage and fewer civilian casualties than drone strikes.
Just yesterday, the US had a drone strike that killed 10 civilians. The military and administration proceeded to lie about the strike and pretend they hit the target, but they were called out by the NY Times and had to backtrack.
We could see fewer civilian deaths with technology like this.
On the other hand, this could reduce the "barrier to action" that countries have before they attempt a targeted killing.
Which means even less "due process" for foreign internationals who are perceived to be enemies of the state. If the CIA thinks you're a threat, you're dead.
Let's ignore the question of how good the CIA is at intelligence-gathering.
- sudosysgen 5y agoIt's not an either or. Israel has no ability to carry out drone strikes in Iran.
- refurb 5y agoWhy do you say that? Genuine question. Didn’t they bomb a launch pad a year or two back? If you can do it with manned aircraft you can do it with a drone.
- sudosysgen 5y agoBecause Iran has hacked drones, even American drones, repeatedly. Manned aircraft aren't susceptible to that, but even then as Iran starts to get more modern Chinese and Russian SAM systems and gains experience with them Israeli manned excursions will get less frequent.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoNobody lied about the strike, it takes time to confirm you've fucked up, investigate, write a report, brief a general, etc.
- kingofpandora 5y agoDo you believe they would have come clean if the media hadn't challenged their narrative first?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoYes
- kingofpandora 5y agoI think that's naive of you.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoI think you're fishing for things that fit your narrative. The fact is that they did apologize, admit a mistake, and did not lie. Your hypothetical is irrelevant. Your question was loaded but I answered it anyway- shame on me I guess.
- xyzzy21 5y agoThe issue with "high precision weapons" is that it merely eliminates the chances of aiming at a target and not destroying it. However, then the question is: "is it even the 'correct' target?" The recent "ISIS-K" that turned out to be an innocent aid worker and his family is exactly how this can work wrongly: the weak link isn't the weapon; it's the targeting process that can be imprecise and inaccurate. A human process primarily. Are the rules of engagement correct? If not innocents get killed. What is the intelligence source? How is it analyzed? What cross referencing is used? How accurate are sensors and the matching to the target? Etc. Etc.