4 ms·

> I can't see how drones made killing any more economical > than high-altitude daylight bombing did in WWII and Vietnam. Presumably there is a USAF whitepape

by joeyo 11y ago

> I can't see how drones made killing any more economical > than high-altitude daylight bombing did in WWII and Vietnam. Presumably there is a USAF whitepaper or two that outlines exactly how much cheaper drones are (else: why are they using them?) but here are a few possibilities that spring to mind: * The drones themselves are cheaper than the equivalent manned aircraft * Supplies and support for the pilot are cheaper to procure on a base in the US than on an aircraft carrier or forward base * No need to carry life support, etc so drone can carry more weapons or fuel * Lower pilot training costs due to no KIA on drone loss and lower lifetime medical costs for survivable injuries.

unimpressive 11y ago
>Presumably there is a USAF whitepaper or two that outlines exactly how much cheaper drones are (else: why are they using them?) Have you considered that perhaps they are used for ethical reasons such as being a precision strike that kills less innocent bystanders than an indiscriminate bombing? (Believe it or not the military does care about that sort of thing.)
- makomk 11y ago
  Any technology that could allow for more precise bombings could be more easily fitted to a manned bomber because they wouldn't need the video link back to base. Remember, image quality matters a lot here since it restricts how well they can make out the target - innocent people have died because the video links on the drones were too poor-quality to see what they were doing and the operator's superiors jumped to conclusions. It's clearly about cost.
- tomaskafka 11y ago
  FTFY: Precision strike that kills precisely some people about who the operators have a vague hunch. Like women. Or children. http://boingboing.net/2015/03/11/drones-and-the-rise-of-the-hig.html http://boingboing.net/2015/03/11/drones-and-the-rise-of-the-...
- joering2 11y ago
  All actions 2004 – January 31 2015 Total Obama strikes: 362 Total US strikes since 2004: 413 Total reported killed: 2,438-3,942 Civilians reported killed: 416-959 Children reported killed: 168-204 Only 168 children out of 3,942 that's 4% of killed children. If you accept this statistic as reasonable casualties then in my book you're a murderer.
tripzilch 11y ago
> else: why are they using them? Because, surprisingly, most people seem to prefer killing people in a manner that is more like a video game, safely at home, over actually going halfway across the world, to an actual war zone, where they actually are confronted with the destruction and havoc they wreak. That's some really heavy shit to expect from most people. And then they come back with all sorts of psychological trauma from the terrible things they've done and witnessed, getting those people the help and support to heal their mental wounds to live a relatively PTSD-free life isn't cheap either (as you mentioned in your fourth point). And fortunately, because for the USA war is an export-only product, you have this option. Sure there's economical factors, but I would not underestimate just how much nicer it is not having to actually go there and breathe the same air as the herds they're ordered to thin, or think about. Think of it as a Roomba, but for the desert.

by joeyo 11y ago

unimpressive 11y ago

>Presumably there is a USAF whitepaper or two that outlines exactly how much cheaper drones are (else: why are they using them?) Have you considered that perhaps they are used for ethical reasons such as being a precision strike that kills less innocent bystanders than an indiscriminate bombing? (Believe it or not the military does care about that sort of thing.)

makomk 11y ago
Any technology that could allow for more precise bombings could be more easily fitted to a manned bomber because they wouldn't need the video link back to base. Remember, image quality matters a lot here since it restricts how well they can make out the target - innocent people have died because the video links on the drones were too poor-quality to see what they were doing and the operator's superiors jumped to conclusions. It's clearly about cost.
tomaskafka 11y ago
FTFY: Precision strike that kills precisely some people about who the operators have a vague hunch. Like women. Or children. http://boingboing.net/2015/03/11/drones-and-the-rise-of-the-hig.html http://boingboing.net/2015/03/11/drones-and-the-rise-of-the-...
joering2 11y ago
All actions 2004 – January 31 2015 Total Obama strikes: 362 Total US strikes since 2004: 413 Total reported killed: 2,438-3,942 Civilians reported killed: 416-959 Children reported killed: 168-204 Only 168 children out of 3,942 that's 4% of killed children. If you accept this statistic as reasonable casualties then in my book you're a murderer.

tripzilch 11y ago

> else: why are they using them? Because, surprisingly, most people seem to prefer killing people in a manner that is more like a video game, safely at home, over actually going halfway across the world, to an actual war zone, where they actually are confronted with the destruction and havoc they wreak. That's some really heavy shit to expect from most people. And then they come back with all sorts of psychological trauma from the terrible things they've done and witnessed, getting those people the help and support to heal their mental wounds to live a relatively PTSD-free life isn't cheap either (as you mentioned in your fourth point). And fortunately, because for the USA war is an export-only product, you have this option. Sure there's economical factors, but I would not underestimate just how much nicer it is not having to actually go there and breathe the same air as the herds they're ordered to thin, or think about. Think of it as a Roomba, but for the desert.