Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on March 8, 2013 at 6:23pm

@ Unseen,

What if it's a conventional truck bomb (Oklahoma style) covered with 4 lbs. of powdered Plutonium laying on top. 

And the prevailing wind will carry the resulting radioactive cloud over a major population area?

Do you still want to hit it with a Hellfire missile?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Obfuskation on March 10, 2013 at 5:21pm

If it's a standard nuclear munitions, you still have the radioactive material getting spread by the Hellfire explosion.  The drone strike still turns the nuke into a dirty bomb.

You're better off helo inserting 19D teams ahead of the van and taking out the occupants, then recovering the van and bomb in tact.  If you have the intel on the vehicle, it's contents, and it's route, then you have a great many more options than a half-assed drone strike.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate Lundgren on March 8, 2013 at 10:12pm

Well said Unseen. I agree. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Strega on March 8, 2013 at 12:25am

Will the second amendment cover the peoples right to own drones too?  If not, then the peoples right to bear arms is going to be a bit futile when examined from its intended perspective.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on March 8, 2013 at 12:41am

We already have the right to own drones because they are not per se weapons. The question is whether and how much to limit those rights. They seem at this point more a threat to privacy than anything else.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Judith van der Roos on March 8, 2013 at 11:45am

I did read somewhere that texas is considering bringing a law to make illegal to video, record, sample in anyway a private property. This was started following the successful prosecuting of a meat packing plant for polluting a waterway on the evidence of a privately owned hobby drone snapped shots of a river of blood flowing into a river and the corporation concerned lobbied a politician.
I am sorry i cannot recall the source, maybe Huffington.com

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on March 8, 2013 at 6:31pm

Hahaha...well it is Texas..LOL

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate Lundgren on March 8, 2013 at 10:19pm

I live in Texas and people are crazy here but not that crazy. Plus there are a lot of libertarians here that would not let a law like that pass. It is already illegal to trespass on private property so no new law is needed. Everyone knows that the front of their house etc. it open to being photographed. Google does it all the time. hahaha

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by forrest pugh on March 8, 2013 at 3:58pm

The right to bear arms comes from the history of the United States as a nation founded on self-reliance and responsibility. It was intended that the citizens themselves would fight with their very lives against all forms of tyranny with whatever means they had at their disposal. Violence against tyranny is very strongly built into our culture. In fact it is very much what the Civil War was fought over, more so than mere slavery/freedom issues; the southern states call it the "War of Northern Aggression" for a good reason. From their perspective the federalists were over-reaching and needed to be stopped in the very same sense that Britain's Tea Tax led to the event in that Boston harbor which served as an ignition point for the conflict to follow.

Our 2nd Amendment is the founder's guarantee us that we are allowed and encouraged to fight off tyranny, especially from our own government. In that vein we should be allowed as upstanding citizens to own ANY sort of weapon required to do the job - not just protect us from home intruders, but from armed military-style incursions into our homes and lives.

What is glossed over mostly is that the 1st Amendment is there so that we can solve the problem WITHOUT fighting... take it for what it is worth.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Judith van der Roos on March 8, 2013 at 11:41am

Mmmmmmmm.

What if another nation considered an american on american soil a threat to them and sent in a drone strike, just as america has done in goodness know how many countries now ?

The genie is out of the bottle, bring a whole new meaning to "rubbing one off" for the pentagon.
regards,
Judith vd R.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sagacious Hawk on March 8, 2013 at 12:35pm

Unfortunately, Judith, it's the principle of "might makes right" in action. I recall that one of the definitions of justice given in Plato's "Republic" was that justice was the will of the stronger. I think that's exactly what we're seeing and it applies to both situations. The US government continues to use drone strikes in places like Pakistan and Yemen because it knows that no one who cares about getting them to stop is in a position to really do anything about it. If the tables were turned, there would be a cruise missile finding it's way into a command and control center and/or the satellites responsible for relaying the attack would be taken out of orbit. Whoever attacked America in such a way would find it difficult to do so again.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that it is what it is.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on March 8, 2013 at 4:29pm

I don't know. Why stop with drones?

What if some nation detonated a thermobaric bomb around the Amsterdam Arena during a major football match or a neutron bomb over Amsterdam creating a disaster similar to the 9/11 attacks. The Netherlands, you seem to imply, would not consider itself at war with the instigators and would just sit there weeping "Why us?"

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 10
• Next ›
• Page