4 ms·

> Yes, since drones are used IN ADDITION to traditional air strikes, and for different kind of attacks. "Traditional" air strikes haven't been going on since 2

by mpyne 12y ago

> Yes, since drones are used IN ADDITION to traditional air strikes, and for different kind of attacks. "Traditional" air strikes haven't been going on since 2001 (for Afghanistan) and 2003 (for Iraq). Do you really think that fighter jets are just roaming around randomly in Afghanistan bombing random things? There are plenty of aircraft, sure, but they are doing missions like CAS (close air support of ground troops) or delivering bombs to precise targets.... the same kind of thing drones are doing. Except drones carry smaller bombs than 500lb JDAMs, which helps drones reduce collateral damage (and civilian casualties) from the equivalent strike directed by a manned attack fighter. But either way, being used for "different kinds of attacks" is not even close to illegal. If anything using drones with lower-payload ordnance to perform different missions instead of manned fighters with cluster bombs or JDAMs is a noted improvement in the U.S. military's efforts to reduce CIVCAS and collateral property damage. > If anything, with drones getting cheaper, smaller plus not needing pilots and not having any casualties on the operating side, etc, they will also be used more than "traditional air strikes" which are much more difficult to approve and costlier. Drones are, sadly, not getting any cheaper. They are cheaper to train pilots for, that much is true. But again, "it's not quite as sporting" isn't an argument against drones.... the same argument was used about long-range artillery in the Russo-Japanese war (some British fogies actually said they would never personally use artillery if they couldn't personally see the aimpoint, an attitude which didn't last long on the Western Front). The Germans used the same argument to complain about Americans using a brutal, evil weapon in WWI... that's right, the shotgun, the "OMG drones!!" of 1917.

coldtea 12y ago
>"Traditional" air strikes haven't been going on since 2001 (for Afghanistan) and 2003 (for Iraq). So? If there's an operational need for them, they'll come back at an instant. They haven't stopped because drones, just because that part of the whole operation was over. You usually do those at the first stage of a "war", not at the "ocuppying force" stages. >The Germans used the same argument to complain about Americans using a brutal, evil weapon in WWI... that's right, the shotgun, the "OMG drones!!" of 1917. Is that said as if things turned all the better for the increased arms race? If anything I'd like to see those things controlled and restricted, like with do with other kinds of weapons with international treaties. There's an hypocrisy involved in all this, that usually the persons saying it's all OK will be all tears and patriotic songs if it's even a person on their land that gets the same treatment, wheres the lives of 100s of innocent people on foreign lands are somehow not worth much.
- mpyne 12y ago
  > If there's an operational need for them, they'll come back at an instant. Yes, they will come back if they're needed. The reason they're not needed is because drones are available. > Is that said as if things turned all the better for the increased arms race? It's said as in shotguns were not the horrific inhumane weapon they were made out to be, in comparison to all the more innovate and brutal ways we've figured out how to kill each other in the decades since. At least the shotgun stood a good chance of putting someone hors de combat instead of killing them outright; rifle ammunition was and is designed explicitly to cause massive trauma leading to death. > wheres the lives of 100s of innocent people on foreign lands are somehow not worth much. The Taliban kill far, far more Muslims than the West could hope to match. The same was (and now is) true in Iraq. The lives of innocents abroad are worth something, which is one of the reasons why America risks her own blood and treasure: Having a reasonably stable and secure Afghanistan, without Muslims killing Muslims every day, is flat-out good for America too. Likewise for nearby Pakistan, a possessor of nuclear weapons (and victim of recent Taliban attacks at Karachi airport); the insurgency there isn't just bad for the innocent peoples of Pakistan, it's bad for the rest of the world including America.

by mpyne 12y ago

coldtea 12y ago

>"Traditional" air strikes haven't been going on since 2001 (for Afghanistan) and 2003 (for Iraq). So? If there's an operational need for them, they'll come back at an instant. They haven't stopped because drones, just because that part of the whole operation was over. You usually do those at the first stage of a "war", not at the "ocuppying force" stages. >The Germans used the same argument to complain about Americans using a brutal, evil weapon in WWI... that's right, the shotgun, the "OMG drones!!" of 1917. Is that said as if things turned all the better for the increased arms race? If anything I'd like to see those things controlled and restricted, like with do with other kinds of weapons with international treaties. There's an hypocrisy involved in all this, that usually the persons saying it's all OK will be all tears and patriotic songs if it's even a person on their land that gets the same treatment, wheres the lives of 100s of innocent people on foreign lands are somehow not worth much.

mpyne 12y ago
> If there's an operational need for them, they'll come back at an instant. Yes, they will come back if they're needed. The reason they're not needed is because drones are available. > Is that said as if things turned all the better for the increased arms race? It's said as in shotguns were not the horrific inhumane weapon they were made out to be, in comparison to all the more innovate and brutal ways we've figured out how to kill each other in the decades since. At least the shotgun stood a good chance of putting someone hors de combat instead of killing them outright; rifle ammunition was and is designed explicitly to cause massive trauma leading to death. > wheres the lives of 100s of innocent people on foreign lands are somehow not worth much. The Taliban kill far, far more Muslims than the West could hope to match. The same was (and now is) true in Iraq. The lives of innocents abroad are worth something, which is one of the reasons why America risks her own blood and treasure: Having a reasonably stable and secure Afghanistan, without Muslims killing Muslims every day, is flat-out good for America too. Likewise for nearby Pakistan, a possessor of nuclear weapons (and victim of recent Taliban attacks at Karachi airport); the insurgency there isn't just bad for the innocent peoples of Pakistan, it's bad for the rest of the world including America.