The U.S. is using drones more and more under the Obama administration. Not so much, I think, because of Obama, but because the technology is bearing fruit at this time in the history of warfare.

Drones can gather intel as well is shoot missiles. 

The advantage is that the drone pilots can be safe far from the battlefield. My father has a friend who has a daughter who flies drones in Afghanistan from a base in the Southwestern U.S. Then she goes home, after killing people during the day, to her husband and kids in the evening.

This is the future of warfare. Is it better or worse?

One thing to bear in mind: drones, like any military technology will be used against us someday.

Your thoughts?

Tags: drones, impersonal, warfare

Views: 642

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

How would you handle this Judith - what do you think should be done?

What I find most disturbing about this post is just how few comments there have been from Americans. Does silence mean acquiescence with the policy ?

I would say the resulting silence on the subject speaks for itself and answers your question as well Judith!

 

I'm an American Judith, and I find war to be reprehensible, and in my own morality code, immoral. That having been said, America is in a war, and I have no more control over that, than I did the one in which I was involved, strongly against my will.

Some people may fight to vent rage, or for causes too numerous to name, but once a fight has begun - whether it involves single individuals or entire armies - the goal of the wise fighter is to as quickly as possible, render the opponent incapable of fighting further. This strategy goes back as far as Sun Tzu, and his Art of War.

Terrorists have used explosives in their fight, originally on the World Trade Center, and later, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and have had seemingly no concern for the lives of innocents. The entire objective of a war of terror, is to instill as much fear as possible, in as many people as possible, to kill the enemy, to send a message to those who would lend support to the enemy, and to say to the enemy, "If you were not here, doing what you're doing, this wouldn't have happened." And if you subscribe to a religion that believes that the innocent people killed, as well as the suicide bomber, will be immediately transported to paradise, where they will be rewarded by Allah, what incentive would any terrorist have to kill only those he or she deemed guilty of an offense? In the beginning of the conflict with al Quaeda, and/or the Taliban, the idea of using terror as a weapon even included such atrocities as publicly beheading an American on television, a petroleum engineer who had no part in any of the conflicts, but the practice was abandoned once it was realized that it was found to disgust even those al Quaeda had hoped to recruit.

In fact, terrorists were the ones who first invented "double-dipping," setting off bombs in crowded markets, then secondary bombs, when first responders arrived, so that finally, for their own safety, Police Officers, EMTs and Firefighters had to - just as you mentioned in your earlier comment - stand aside and listen to screams of pain and anguish, as the injured and dying lay there, wondering why no help was forthcoming.

At least the intention of drones is to take out the guilty. In practice, yes, it often kills the innocent, and the practice of "double-dipping," even more so. And I agree that although the fact that the collateral damage of innocents is not NEARLY so great as in the terrorist's market and bus bombings, that doesn't make it right. Neither does, in the case of "double'dipping," saying, "But they started it!"

But if, by whittling down the terrorist's leadership, even killing innocents (who in fact, may not be so innocent, at least in terms of support) in the process, slows or ultimately stops the market and bus bombs, where even greater numbers of innocents are killed, then more lives are saved, than lost. If there's an opportunity to take out these men, and it is NOT taken for fear of harming innocents, then the one who chooses not to take it, bears some of the responsibility for the next market bombing these men plan and execute.

Yes, it may be said that as one leader is killed, another takes his place, but assuming the wisest and most experienced emerge as leaders, he who replaces the leader is, by default, less wise and less experienced, and further, he's acutely aware of what happened to the man he has just replaced.

We Americans have three choices: 1) Abandon the Afghans and let things go back to the way they were; 2) Take a less aggressive approach, allowing the conflict to drag on, with the resultant loss of many, many more lives; or 3) End the war as quickly as possible, by whatever means necessary, rendering the opponent incapable of continuing to fight.

None of the available options are good ones - they all suck.

But forget what I think - what would you do, Judith?

This is one of many slippery slopes. A person looking at a computer screen, cannot tell the difference between a child and an adult. Is that a kid down there, working in a garden, or is that an adult planting a bomb. In Afghanistan, they are collecting all the fragments, and are going to the UN to show videos of dead innocents, killed by drones. They will come into good use, eventually, but they are impersonal, and I would think the Afghanis and Iraqis are really over so many people getting randomly killed. This whole war thing is going to backfire on us, if it hasn't already.

This is a quagmire - where nobody wins - Imran Khan is known to a lot of people in Commonwealth countries, as a retired cricket player and would be politician - America and allies will eventually leave - and nothing will have changed - Taliban and al-Qa'ida will survive and just carry on.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/pakistan-warns-it-will-h...

Lots of stuff on the internet about it - Imran Khan is gathering momentum, and nobody knows the outcome of all this shite.

http://www.google.com.au/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=imra...

Sounds like a peaceful protest to me - I see nothing wrong with it.

Both the Taliban and the US are condemning the protest.

That fact alone, would be enough to tell me the dude must be doing SOMEthing right!

I have friends in the military.  These drones are going into areas where putting our soldiers on the ground there would be a death sentence.  You want civilian casualties by the truckload?  Look at what happens in a Vietnam or Laos, putting boots on the ground in hot zones.  These scumbags shield themselves with civilians.  They will do everything possible to put an innocent between themselves and a bullet until they no place left to hide.


I'm not saying I don't think this whole enterprise, as it's being conducted, isn't just a big waste of time and money.  But within the current (and fucked) constraints of the mission, the drones are saving our soldiers and more innocent lives every day than the other, bloody-as-fuck alternative.

Peace can mean that an oppressed people don't overthrow their oppressors. That invaders don't get driven away. 

Peace can be bad.

Peace at all costs can establish the status quo permanently.

One of the few times Benji got it wrong. 

You're saying it was wrong to wage war to free the U.S. from England or to put down Nazi Germany and Japan in WW2?

Tell me you're not serious.

RSS

  

Events

Blog Posts

Labels

Posted by Quincy Maxwell on July 20, 2014 at 9:37pm 28 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service