4 ms·

I think I would be more inclined to condemn the drone program that almost always comes with collateral damage. The fact that we can't positively identify those

I think I would be more inclined to condemn the drone program that almost always comes with collateral damage. The fact that we can't positively identify those who we are attacking should be reason enough to be critical.

tptacek 14y ago
You think this because drones are new and alien. But airstrikes are not new. Airstrikes in World War 2 killed more innocent people than any drone will ever kill. Tokyo was made of paper and we firebombed it. Drone combat is surgical compared with practically every other way in which we've fought wars. Drone operators are in no personal danger and don't need to act while under the cortisol and epinephrine loads of bullets whizzing by their heads. Drone operators are well-rested (in-theater combat troops are never well-rested). They're more mature than combat infantry. Drone resources are comparatively inexpensive and so missions don't have to be crafted that sacrifice risk of civilian casualties to minimize risks of military casualties.
- harshreality 14y ago
  I agree for the most part, but one of the objections to drone strikes is the vague nature of target selection. The U.S. doesn't want to say flat-out that Yemen, for instance, is a hostile country and a warzone; yet it still wants the ability to kill whoever it wants in that country, for reasons that will never be transparent due to sensitive sources and methods.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    Your problem is with AUMF then. not with drones as such. We could have undertaken identical actions with a fighter jet or a sniper under the legislation, it's just easier with a drone.
anigbrowl 14y ago
Drone strikes come with a lot less collateral damage than traditional airstrikes, and less again than carpet bombing. My in-laws are from North Vietnam and I've heard some fairly horrific stories about what the latter is like. Realistically, if you're traveling around or having dinner with someone who's a military target, such as an Al Qaeda commander, then your life is also in danger.

tptacek 14y ago

You think this because drones are new and alien. But airstrikes are not new. Airstrikes in World War 2 killed more innocent people than any drone will ever kill. Tokyo was made of paper and we firebombed it. Drone combat is surgical compared with practically every other way in which we've fought wars. Drone operators are in no personal danger and don't need to act while under the cortisol and epinephrine loads of bullets whizzing by their heads. Drone operators are well-rested (in-theater combat troops are never well-rested). They're more mature than combat infantry. Drone resources are comparatively inexpensive and so missions don't have to be crafted that sacrifice risk of civilian casualties to minimize risks of military casualties.

harshreality 14y ago
I agree for the most part, but one of the objections to drone strikes is the vague nature of target selection. The U.S. doesn't want to say flat-out that Yemen, for instance, is a hostile country and a warzone; yet it still wants the ability to kill whoever it wants in that country, for reasons that will never be transparent due to sensitive sources and methods.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  Your problem is with AUMF then. not with drones as such. We could have undertaken identical actions with a fighter jet or a sniper under the legislation, it's just easier with a drone.

anigbrowl 14y ago

Drone strikes come with a lot less collateral damage than traditional airstrikes, and less again than carpet bombing. My in-laws are from North Vietnam and I've heard some fairly horrific stories about what the latter is like. Realistically, if you're traveling around or having dinner with someone who's a military target, such as an Al Qaeda commander, then your life is also in danger.