6 ms·

even in a simulation ad to give a use case, the drones are used to target a small village in the middle of a desert. it's somewhat obvious what the use case wil

even in a simulation ad to give a use case, the drones are used to target a small village in the middle of a desert. it's somewhat obvious what the use case will be: don't send troops in so that US troop loses can be limited and in the meantime we can continue to kill all those pesky insurgents in 5-6 hut villages... it's fucking insane.

smoyer 11y ago
U.S. President George W. Bush said "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." This doesn't look at all decisive to me ... there's absolutely no way those little drones can pack the fire-power shown in that simulation. The bigger question is why don't we try some bridge building first?
- MDib 11y ago
  Are we sure that the drones themselves will be carrying payloads though? Just judging by the video and also just thinking about logistics of accurately bombing something from that airframe plus general sizes of ordinance, it looks more like they are lasing targets for some kind of guided ordinance launched from another platform. The key benefit here is for them to be sent out to autonomously seek and 'destroy' without having to waste man-hours trooping through the bush looking for a target that may or may not be there.
griffinmahon 11y ago
I thought the same thing. Why couldn't they just make the ground green?
josefresco 11y ago
Those "pesky insurgents" are managing to kill a lot of people from their "hut villages" and oh by the way, are funded by some of the richest and most powerful nations on Earth. So don't let the "huts" confuse you, there's still capable forces inside waiting for the opportunity to further their agenda. Also, the battlefield may be comprised of "huts" but the fighters are living in cities and using technology far beyond "hut level" throughout the world. These "pesky insurgents" have also managed to export their agenda around the world (beyond the borders of their huts), and using technology have slaughtered thousands of civilians (sound familiar?)
- locopati 11y ago
  If you trust the military when that's what they tell you.
  - josefresco 11y ago
    I trust independent reporting which in this case is plentiful. No need to rely on "propaganda" from either side, thankfully I can (and you can to) easily find reports from the ground by actual citizens, and reports from news agencies around the world not under the influence of the US or it's allies/adversaries.
    - moe 11y ago
      thankfully I can (and you can to) easily find reports from the ground by actual citizens Where? How do I vet and quantify them? and reports from news agencies around the world not under the influence of the US or it's allies/adversaries Links please!
- jjoonathan 11y ago
  > using technology have slaughtered thousands of civilians (sound familiar?) Yes, yes it does. What's the count again? Them: 5000, US: 100,000? Why take an eye for an eye when you can take 20 eyes for an eye? Maybe with this technology we can get that up to 40 or 50! Hoo-rah! /s
  - josefresco 11y ago
    "Them" Who is them exactly? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Syria? FSA? ISIL? Al Qaeda? the dozens of tribal militia funded by both (all) sides ... the list could literally go on forever and so can the casualty count - speaking of... 5K is a ridiculously low number considering the documented casualties on all sides in the last (roughly) two decades of warfare (although it shouldn't be limited to this timeframe).
    - jjoonathan 11y ago
XorNot 11y ago
Those small village insurgents visit a lot of rape, pillage and murder on the other occupants of those villages.
- trhway 11y ago
  this is why leveling villages has proved to be such a successful tactic there since the time of the Crusades.

smoyer 11y ago

U.S. President George W. Bush said "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." This doesn't look at all decisive to me ... there's absolutely no way those little drones can pack the fire-power shown in that simulation. The bigger question is why don't we try some bridge building first?

MDib 11y ago
Are we sure that the drones themselves will be carrying payloads though? Just judging by the video and also just thinking about logistics of accurately bombing something from that airframe plus general sizes of ordinance, it looks more like they are lasing targets for some kind of guided ordinance launched from another platform. The key benefit here is for them to be sent out to autonomously seek and 'destroy' without having to waste man-hours trooping through the bush looking for a target that may or may not be there.

griffinmahon 11y ago

I thought the same thing. Why couldn't they just make the ground green?

josefresco 11y ago

Those "pesky insurgents" are managing to kill a lot of people from their "hut villages" and oh by the way, are funded by some of the richest and most powerful nations on Earth. So don't let the "huts" confuse you, there's still capable forces inside waiting for the opportunity to further their agenda. Also, the battlefield may be comprised of "huts" but the fighters are living in cities and using technology far beyond "hut level" throughout the world. These "pesky insurgents" have also managed to export their agenda around the world (beyond the borders of their huts), and using technology have slaughtered thousands of civilians (sound familiar?)

locopati 11y ago
If you trust the military when that's what they tell you.
- josefresco 11y ago
  I trust independent reporting which in this case is plentiful. No need to rely on "propaganda" from either side, thankfully I can (and you can to) easily find reports from the ground by actual citizens, and reports from news agencies around the world not under the influence of the US or it's allies/adversaries.
  - moe 11y ago
    thankfully I can (and you can to) easily find reports from the ground by actual citizens Where? How do I vet and quantify them? and reports from news agencies around the world not under the influence of the US or it's allies/adversaries Links please!
jjoonathan 11y ago
> using technology have slaughtered thousands of civilians (sound familiar?) Yes, yes it does. What's the count again? Them: 5000, US: 100,000? Why take an eye for an eye when you can take 20 eyes for an eye? Maybe with this technology we can get that up to 40 or 50! Hoo-rah! /s
- josefresco 11y ago
  "Them" Who is them exactly? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Syria? FSA? ISIL? Al Qaeda? the dozens of tribal militia funded by both (all) sides ... the list could literally go on forever and so can the casualty count - speaking of... 5K is a ridiculously low number considering the documented casualties on all sides in the last (roughly) two decades of warfare (although it shouldn't be limited to this timeframe).
  - jjoonathan 11y ago

XorNot 11y ago

Those small village insurgents visit a lot of rape, pillage and murder on the other occupants of those villages.

trhway 11y ago
this is why leveling villages has proved to be such a successful tactic there since the time of the Crusades.