I've heard this on TV a few times and the blame usually falls on the technolgy itself being in some way immoral. I get that inadvertantly causing civilian deaths and violating borders and assasinations are bad. But, surely theres no difference between using a drone and a piloted aircraft or CIA trained assasians on the ground; things the US has done for decades? If the issue is that the technology isn't quite up to the mark and is not quite as accurate as a manned aircraft then surely in a decade or so the technology will be adequete. it just seems really strange that people blame the drones and not the people operating/maintaining them or the policies themselves. Its like people in the Renaisance claiming that guns were a dishonourable way of killing but hacking somebody to pieces with a sword was "just killing". Just feels like very anachronistic moralising IMO.

it's the fact it pretty indiscriminate and does kill alot of bystanders and has been conducting hits in Pakistan, that's the difference between unmanned bombs and assassins

Drones have long loiter times, so they have a semi-permenancy a fly-over doesnt.

It also highlights the attitude of the US not giving a feth about airspace and sovereignty.

 Orlanth wrote:
It also highlights the attitude of the US not giving a feth about airspace and sovereignty.

Pakistan's? No, I absolutely do not care about their airspace or sovereignty. They sheltered bin Laden for years. They can complain all they want.

 Seaward wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
It also highlights the attitude of the US not giving a feth about airspace and sovereignty.

Pakistan's? No, I absolutely do not care about their airspace or sovereignty. They sheltered bin Laden for years. They can complain all they want.

You do realise that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, right? That is the last place you want to piss off and add fuel to for islamic extremists to burn and come to power.

The issue(at least according to the UN and the Air Force members I know) is that Drones can be sent in to kill without exposing our own soldiers. Essentially, the 'issue' is that it's unfair.

 Seaward wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
It also highlights the attitude of the US not giving a feth about airspace and sovereignty.

Pakistan's? No, I absolutely do not care about their airspace or sovereignty. They sheltered bin Laden for years. They can complain all they want.

I get that...

But, my beef is that it's a very tiny minority that the US needs to go after and using Drones to me just seems to be an awful way to do this. My take is that if we feel the need to use the drones, then send in the special forces (boots on the ground) to get the mission done.

Yeah, they have nukes... so do we, so there is that.

While nuclear weapons are bad, scary, awe-ful things... and I'm not satisfied that ANYONE has them... the odds of them being used again are IMO vanishingly small.

Use a nuke, expect immediate world-wide condemnation and your country to be invaded. Justifiably.

So, we're talking about a country with a strongly fundamentalist foundation (Pakistan) armed with a nuke being harassed by drones. Pakistan will not use the nuke, there is simply too much for them to lose.

I understand that bad feelings that the use of drones generate, but the bad feelings that would be generated by the act of deploying troops and materiel into a region to wage the "war on terror" would be significantly worse.

This is a sad planet, and it's not going to ever be "just", but drones have their uses. Furthermore, they aren't going to go away. I mourn the loss of the innocents, but bad people have been around since forever and we have to understand that our hoping/wishing/praying for something different won't affect reality.

The cycle of violence will never end. I understand that we are probably creating some more enemies for every one we remove - and maybe more for the innocents we remove - but this is the world we live in.

 Seaward wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
It also highlights the attitude of the US not giving a feth about airspace and sovereignty.

Pakistan's? No, I absolutely do not care about their airspace or sovereignty. They sheltered bin Laden for years. They can complain all they want.

We have active drone programs in virtually every mid eastern and north African country right now... As to the ops point, I think this is it right here. Drones themselves aren't too bad, but we use them in a way that violates treaties that we are signatory to. Their almost sole role is assassination, they do it pervasively and constantly, and they do it without a strong level of oversight or detail as they are entirely reliant on aerial views and intel tips on the ground. She sheer scale of their use is what puts them in the media, and their role is distasteful at best.

 Platuan4th wrote:
The issue(at least according to the UN and the Air Force members I know) is that Drones can be sent in to kill without exposing our own soldiers. Essentially, the 'issue' is that it's unfair.

I think there is some concept of honourable combat in which the aggressor at least exposes himself to some kind of danger. In that concept, drones rank with snipers as people killing defenceless targets from afar, without risk.

Interestingly, westerners tend to see suicide bombers as unfair, though their level of risk is 100%.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
The issue(at least according to the UN and the Air Force members I know) is that Drones can be sent in to kill without exposing our own soldiers. Essentially, the 'issue' is that it's unfair.

I think there is some concept of honourable combat in which the aggressor at least exposes himself to some kind of danger. In that concept, drones rank with snipers as people killing defenceless targets from afar, without risk.

Interestingly, westerners tend to see suicide bombers as unfair, though their level of risk is 100%.

Oh, no doubt. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong in either direction, just that it's what the arguments against drones essentially boil down to.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
The issue(at least according to the UN and the Air Force members I know) is that Drones can be sent in to kill without exposing our own soldiers. Essentially, the 'issue' is that it's unfair.

I think there is some concept of honourable combat in which the aggressor at least exposes himself to some kind of danger. In that concept, drones rank with snipers as people killing defenceless targets from afar, without risk.

Interestingly, westerners tend to see suicide bombers as unfair, though their level of risk is 100%.

Oh, no doubt. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong in either direction, just that it's what the arguments against drones essentially boil down to.

I thought the argument boiled down to the fact that were indiscriminate, as characterizes all aerial weapons. Certainly, there's a weird honor thing going on too, but I've yet to see that as more than a footnote or a part of an argument stating a dwindling level of morality involved in western warfare.

 whembly wrote:
I get that...

But, my beef is that it's a very tiny minority that the US needs to go after and using Drones to me just seems to be an awful way to do this. My take is that if we feel the need to use the drones, then send in the special forces (boots on the ground) to get the mission done.

Yeah, they have nukes... so do we, so there is that.

Targets of this sort move around a lot. We find out where they are, and we have a fairly small window, in many cases, to actually hit them. We cannot just send SEALs or ACE guys in with a couple hours' notice. Drones, we can.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Interestingly, westerners tend to see suicide bombers as unfair, though their level of risk is 100%.

I have never heard anyone complain about suicide bombers because they're unfair.

I have heard people complain about suicide bombers because their targets are, very often, purely civilian.

 Seaward wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I get that...

But, my beef is that it's a very tiny minority that the US needs to go after and using Drones to me just seems to be an awful way to do this. My take is that if we feel the need to use the drones, then send in the special forces (boots on the ground) to get the mission done.

Yeah, they have nukes... so do we, so there is that.

Targets of this sort move around a lot. We find out where they are, and we have a fairly small window, in many cases, to actually hit them. We cannot just send SEALs or ACE guys in with a couple hours' notice. Drones, we can.

Drones also give you the opportunity to strike at the point of identification, drones are all primarily surveillance craft first and strike craft second. The time to identification and strike on a drone can be seconds which allows for us to attack people identified as setting up roadside bombs or transporting munitions or manpower too or from a conflict. Problematically it can't do fact checking, and it's hard to see who is in a van (as previous controversial incidents have shown).

I have never heard anyone complain about suicide bombers because they're unfair.

Suicide bombings probably as fair as it gets where killing people is concerned. That's a one way ticket, no cheating.

Unfair as in being an underhanded type of attack.

Drones' targets are often civilian. In practice if not in theory.

Mistakes are easier to make when judging a situation from a web cam.

 Seaward wrote:

I have never heard anyone complain about suicide bombers because they're unfair.

I have heard people complain about suicide bombers because their targets are, very often, purely civilian.

Yeah me either.. Alls fair in love and war, I have heard complaints about their indiscriminate nature though. You would think considering that (by definition!) they have a human opartor they would leave little to no civilian casualities, but its not the case, and they also seem to not give a gak anyway, as long as they are making a good effort to get the troops, they seem to care little for the Afghan civilians.

For example, I personally complained, and long and loudly, when a SVBIED blew himself up far too early, didn't kill anyone on our patrol, and killed 4 innocent Afghans and a fething donkey though.

....


I mean, I really like horses and donkeys. I think they are stoic and noble animals.

I dislike drones because they make the act of killing more impersonal. The person piloting the drone never has to face death or witness first hand the effects of their actions like a soldier on the ground does.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I dislike drones because they make the act of killing more impersonal. The person piloting the drone never has to face death or witness first hand the effects of their actions like a soldier on the ground does.

That's not much different than most fixed wing air missions though.

The only problem I have with our use of drones is what I'd consider to be excessive civilian collateral. If we could get that cut down substantially with better humint then I'd be all for it.

I prefer we use diplomacy first and foremost. I'd like to really strengthen our world presence within the world community via the UN and so forth.

On the other hand, when diplomacy has failed and hostilities are neccesary, I'd prefer we do so overwhelmingly, with horrifying force, so to end them as soon as humanly possible. It's the best thing to do to save lives, ours and theirs, but waging war as quickly and decisively as that. If killing 6 stateless actors in a pickup from a Reaper will save more lives elsewhere, what moral right do we have to not press the button.


So far as "honor" and "each side having a fair chance", what the F is that nonsense. This isn't the super bowl or cricket, it's war.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I dislike drones because they make the act of killing more impersonal. The person piloting the drone never has to face death or witness first hand the effects of their actions like a soldier on the ground does.

That's not much different than most fixed wing air missions though.

But at least the pilot of an aircraft has to face the possibility of death, from a surface to air missile for example. The drone pilot is sitting in a heavily guarded base in front of a television screen. If a missile takes out his drone then all that's been lost is a multi-million dollar piece of kit, rather than a multi-million dollar piece of kit and a human being.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I dislike drones because they make the act of killing more impersonal. The person piloting the drone never has to face death or witness first hand the effects of their actions like a soldier on the ground does.

That's not much different than most fixed wing air missions though.

But at least the pilot of an aircraft has to face the possibility of death, from a surface to air missile for example. The drone pilot is sitting in a heavily guarded base in front of a television screen. If a missile takes out his drone then all that's been lost is a multi-million dollar piece of kit, rather than a multi-million dollar piece of kit and a human being.

We have never used a drone against an enemy with the capacity to shoot down strategic bombers or fighter craft. The chance of their jet going down is n't much worse than the chance of the drone pilot being in a car accident driving to work.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
I've heard this on TV a few times and the blame usually falls on the technolgy itself being in some way immoral. I get that inadvertantly causing civilian deaths and violating borders and assasinations are bad. But, surely theres no difference between using a drone and a piloted aircraft or CIA trained assasians on the ground; things the US has done for decades? If the issue is that the technology isn't quite up to the mark and is not quite as accurate as a manned aircraft then surely in a decade or so the technology will be adequete. it just seems really strange that people blame the drones and not the people operating/maintaining them or the policies themselves. Its like people in the Renaisance claiming that guns were a dishonourable way of killing but hacking somebody to pieces with a sword was "just killing". Just feels like very anachronistic moralising IMO.

So you are asking in the context of drone strikes?

This was a much longer argument I saw by a professor, but it was a bit ago so bear with me.

In essence, (armed) drones turn the paradigm of war on its head. Generally, the military is there to protect the civilians from foriegn invaders. It doesn't make much difference in someplace like Afghanistan, but it sets a precedent where if we ever get into conflict with a country that has any kind of means, we'll see drones being used against us as well. In that situation the military becomes protected by the civilian population as drone controllers are tucked away flying missions while the drones go after targets that are exposed, which would be the cities and factories.Even in situations like we have now, if the opposition can't fight back by killing drones, given half a chance their option is to go after what they can.

War is a blood sacrifice, and when you remove the blood from one side, it becomes easier both to go to war, and it provokes more attacks against civilians. It isn't as simple as all drone use being bad, but we need to look at how it affects the way we fight wars/conflicts.

 Platuan4th wrote:
The issue(at least according to the UN and the Air Force members I know) is that Drones can be sent in to kill without exposing our own soldiers. Essentially, the 'issue' is that it's unfair.

War has to be fair? Do we need to start standing out in straight lines just to give the enemy a chance?

 Platuan4th wrote:
The issue(at least according to the UN and the Air Force members I know) is that Drones can be sent in to kill without exposing our own soldiers. Essentially, the 'issue' is that it's unfair.

Which is why its so awesome.

Drones away!

One of the points of generalship is to put your forces at an advantage over the enemy.

That said, there is a feeling that waging war with no risk to yourself is in some way unfair. You may not feel that, but some people do.

 Orlanth wrote:
Drones have long loiter times, so they have a semi-permenancy a fly-over doesnt.

It also highlights the attitude of the US not giving a feth about airspace and sovereignty.

Exactly. Again, another reason its so awesome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
One of the points of generalship is to put your forces at an advantage over the enemy.

That said, there is a feeling that waging war with no risk to yourself is in some way unfair. You may not feel that, but some people do.

Those people are what I like to call 'idiots.'

Exactly. Again, another reason its so awesome.

In every thread it's like you want us to be attacked.

Those people are what I like to call 'idiots.'

We have never used a drone in a war. We've used them solely in counter insurgency efforts and unilateral actions against civilian populations. Using robots to blow people up without a ground presence encourages terrorist attacks on civilian targets and breeds immense ill will with everyone.

One could say that those people are pragmatic. The drone strikes certainly haven't won us the "war", but they've sure as hell made us look bad.

 Frazzled wrote:

Those people are what I like to call 'idiots.'

Agreed. All is fair in love and war.

I also don't see why we should get so pissed about the occasional glut of civilian casualties when our enemies actively target our civilians. They say all American/British citizens are legitimate targets. I mean, Jesus, at least we fething TRY not to kill people that don't deserve it.

Now, clearly I'm far too experienced to not be aware that the most important aspect of winning an occupation such as the Afghan conflict and the wider war on terror is winning the hearts and minds of the populace, which is why we have strict ROE and always try to keep civilian casualties down to a minimum. But I dont think its the end of the world when we occasionally feth up. I certainly don't think we should stop using the drones. They work, they are awesome.

At the end of the day, we already occupy the moral high ground. Most Muslims don't see us as heartless baby killers, they are aware we don't intentionally kill the innocent. Only the most extreme fethers think we eat babies... and we aren't going to win them over anyway! I don't see why we should freak out over the occasional wayward drone attack.

feth em. I want us to win, not worry about playing fair with a bunch of savage mother fethers who never do.

Oh, and have a side hobby of throwing acid in little girls faces for the crime of learning to read.

I understand your frustration with that part of the worl Mattyrm, but this isn't just about that part of the world or the things that happen there. At some point drones will be used in other places, including on us.

I also don't see why we should get so pissed about the occasional glut of civilian casualties when our enemies actively target our civilians

Do you see why those two attitudes might be connected to each other though? We both keep killing each others civilians because we both keep killing each others civilians.

 ShumaGorath wrote:


We have never used a drone in a war. We've used them solely in counter insurgency efforts and unilateral actions against civilian populations. Using robots to blow people up without a ground presence encourages terrorist attacks on civilian targets and breeds immense ill will with everyone.

That's a cute sentiment but it's false. We've used drones in both of the Persian Gulf Wars in addition to their use in COIN during the occupation.

 AustonT wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:


We have never used a drone in a war. We've used them solely in counter insurgency efforts and unilateral actions against civilian populations. Using robots to blow people up without a ground presence encourages terrorist attacks on civilian targets and breeds immense ill will with everyone.

That's a cute sentiment but it's false. We've used drones in both of the Persian Gulf Wars in addition to their use in COIN during the occupation.

Sorry, I should have specified armed drones. Satellites and 70s spy balloons can be considered surveillance drones (and while technically a computerized missile could be considered a drone, that's kinda silly).

 ShumaGorath wrote:
We have never used a drone in a war. We've used them solely in counter insurgency efforts and unilateral actions against civilian populations. Using robots to blow people up without a ground presence encourages terrorist attacks on civilian targets and breeds immense ill will with everyone.

We've never used drones against civilian populations. We've used drones against enemy combatants who've embedded themselves within civilian populations. There is a massive difference. An illustration would be "drone strike on terrorist with collateral damage" versus "suicide attack on civilian commercial airliner."

Also, I would take issue with your implication that we never had our civilians targeted until we started using drones.

We've never used drones against civilian populations. We've used drones against enemy combatants who've embedded themselves within civilian populations. There is a massive difference.

Considering one set is contained within the other, no. There isn't a massive difference. We're also not fighting people internationally classified as a military force, we're fighting at best international criminals. At worst we're targeting support staff or actual civilians. What our government considers these people is irrelevant insofar as global public (and even domestic) opinion goes. The majority of the world classifies what we're doing as beyond the scope of legal warfare or international policing and it's not winning us very many friends.

An illustration would be "drone strike on terrorist with collateral damage" versus "suicide attack on civilian commercial airliner."

Part of the issue with illustrating discussion is that both sides can do it. When we hit four insurgents, three unrelated adults, and six children it certainly hurts the credibility of the drone mission. When we hit a fuel supply tanker and kill 30+ people, few of them being classified as enemy combatants, it makes us look damn terrible.

Also, I would take issue with your implication that we never had our civilians targeted until we started using drones.

Of course we didn't, but their utilization unilaterally over the borders of countries like Pakistan and Yemen paint a bigger target over our head than existed previously and thus far has not seemingly impacted our stated missions in either Iraq of Afghanistan materially. They are at best half measures or blunt tools of police warfare, at worst they're one of the best propaganda tools extremists have.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:


We have never used a drone in a war. We've used them solely in counter insurgency efforts and unilateral actions against civilian populations. Using robots to blow people up without a ground presence encourages terrorist attacks on civilian targets and breeds immense ill will with everyone.

That's a cute sentiment but it's false. We've used drones in both of the Persian Gulf Wars in addition to their use in COIN during the occupation.

Sorry, I should have specified armed drones. Satellites and 70s spy balloons can be considered surveillance drones (and while technically a computerized missile could be considered a drone, that's kinda silly).

You can attempt to obfuscate the point all you want. Drones, armed drones have been used in war, by us, against purely military targets. A drone isn't even at it's most dangerous when it is armed.

I supposed people would feel OK about suicide bombers if they achieved some threshold ratio of military to civilian kills.

Considering one set is contained within the other, no. There isn't a massive difference. We're also not fighting people internationally classified as a military force, we're fighting at best international criminals. At worst we're targeting support staff or actual civilians. What our government considers these people is irrelevant insofar as global public (and even domestic) opinion goes. The majority of the world classifies what we're doing as beyond the scope of legal warfare or international policing and it's not winning us very many friends.
***Using that argument, its not smart to try to kill or even harm terrorists in any form.

Part of the issue with illustrating discussion is that both sides can do it. When we hit four insurgents, three unrelated adults, and six children it certainly hurts the credibility of the drone mission. When we hit a fuel supply tanker and kill 30+ people, few of them being classified as enemy combatants, it makes us look damn terrible.
***How is that different than a bombing run, missile strike, artillery bombardment, or 100 redcoats firing muskets?

Of course we didn't, but their utilization unilaterally over the borders of countries like Pakistan and Yemen paint a bigger target over our head than existed previously and thus far has not seemingly impacted our stated missions in either Iraq of Afghanistan materially. They are at best half measures or blunt tools of police warfare, at worst they're one of the best propaganda tools extremists have.
***This goes back to your first point. You’re arguing that its not smart to kill or even harm terrorists in any form.

 AustonT wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:


We have never used a drone in a war. We've used them solely in counter insurgency efforts and unilateral actions against civilian populations. Using robots to blow people up without a ground presence encourages terrorist attacks on civilian targets and breeds immense ill will with everyone.

That's a cute sentiment but it's false. We've used drones in both of the Persian Gulf Wars in addition to their use in COIN during the occupation.

Sorry, I should have specified armed drones. Satellites and 70s spy balloons can be considered surveillance drones (and while technically a computerized missile could be considered a drone, that's kinda silly).

You can attempt to obfuscate the point all you want. Drones, armed drones have been used in war, by us, against purely military targets. A drone isn't even at it's most dangerous when it is armed.

I'm not obfuscating gak. You know I was talking about predators and their ilk, I know it, the moon knows it, That Frankenstein who felt racially oppressed in that Dave Chappelle munsters skit knows it, everyone does.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I supposed people would feel OK about suicide bombers if they achieved some threshold ratio of military to civilian kills.

You mean like kamikaze pilots?

Using that argument, its not smart to try to kill or even harm terrorists in any form.

The argument that acting outside of the scope of international law and ignoring human rights to prosecute a seemingly innefectual and expensive campaign of anti terrorist activities using tools designed for war is a good idea is pretty foolish in the year 2012. We've done it. We've seen the effects. We've seen the aftermath. It's failed. Every hiding place we blow up several more are created in new countries, this is effectively an infinite war and has led to the destabilization of the entire region. My argument is that we should probably stop pretending otherwise. The half measures of distributed targeted violence and full measures of full scale occupancy didn't work. It's time to address the fundamental causes rather than the symptoms.

How is that different than a bombing run, missile strike, artillery bombardment, or 100 redcoats firing muskets?

When humans do it they're often times prosecuted and there is a form of culpability implied. It's also rarer.

This goes back to your first point. You’re arguing that its not smart to kill or even harm terrorists in any form.

I'm only arguing that if you're incapable of legitimately considering or even listening to other peoples arguments. Which you are. Time and time again. In basically every thread. If you start to talk about weiner dogs when you don't like the tone of the conversation this could have been any thread in the last six months.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I supposed people would feel OK about suicide bombers if they achieved some threshold ratio of military to civilian kills.

You mean like kamikaze pilots?

The western attitude towards suicide and the implied invulnerability of our forces forcing such tactics probably have more to do with the hatred of suicide bombing than anything else. We hate suicide, it's trained within us to be viewed as something immoral and cowardly from an early age. Doubly so we hate it when something cowardly and immoral is used to defeat the idea that in a "fair fight" we're effectively unbeatable (which makes me wonder how its fair). It's socially ingrained within us to see something like a suicide bomb as a desperate act of an evil person.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:


We have never used a drone in a war. We've used them solely in counter insurgency efforts and unilateral actions against civilian populations. Using robots to blow people up without a ground presence encourages terrorist attacks on civilian targets and breeds immense ill will with everyone.

That's a cute sentiment but it's false. We've used drones in both of the Persian Gulf Wars in addition to their use in COIN during the occupation.

Sorry, I should have specified armed drones. Satellites and 70s spy balloons can be considered surveillance drones (and while technically a computerized missile could be considered a drone, that's kinda silly).

You can attempt to obfuscate the point all you want. Drones, armed drones have been used in war, by us, against purely military targets. A drone isn't even at it's most dangerous when it is armed.

I'm not obfuscating gak. You know I was talking about predators and their ilk,

Yeah armed UAVs I caught that, used in a war. Next.

The argument that acting outside of the scope of international law and ignoring human rights to prosecute a seemingly innefectual and expensive campaign of anti terrorist activities using tools designed for war is a good idea is pretty foolish in the year 2012. We've done it. We've seen the effects. We've seen the aftermath. It's failed. Every hiding place we blow up several more are created in new countries, this is effectively an infinite war and has led to the destabilization of the entire region.
***There is no international law in regards to terrorists. Further, terrorism is down since the bombers started flying. Further, it appears you’re ceding the point although attempting to cloud the issue.

My argument is that we should probably stop pretending otherwise. The half measures of distributed targeted violence and full measures of full scale occupancy didn't work. It's time to address the fundamental causes rather than the symptoms.
***Wait, you want to quit being half assed and nuke them now?

When humans do it they're often times prosecuted and there is a form of culpability implied. It's also rarer.
***So you want Americans to abandon drones, use troops instead, and then have them prosecuted in criminal courts. Pardon me for not understanding that argument.

I'm only arguing that if you're incapable of legitimately considering or even listening to other peoples arguments. Which you are. Time and time again. In basically every thread. If you start to talk about weiner dogs when you don't like the tone of the conversation this could have been any thread in the last six months.
***Sounds like a personal attack when I am only asking you to support your argument. That and you’re jealous of wiener dogs. If I had the wiener dogs with me Suday night I wouldn’t have had to chase a rooster around the back yard, in the dark.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

The argument that acting outside of the scope of international law and ignoring human rights to prosecute a seemingly innefectual and expensive campaign of anti terrorist activities using tools designed for war is a good idea is pretty foolish in the year 2012. We've done it. We've seen the effects. We've seen the aftermath. It's failed. Every hiding place we blow up several more are created in new countries, this is effectively an infinite war and has led to the destabilization of the entire region. My argument is that we should probably stop pretending otherwise. The half measures of distributed targeted violence and full measures of full scale occupancy didn't work. It's time to address the fundamental causes rather than the symptoms.

So if we stopped using UAVs, we'd stop having people trying to terrorize us?

Perhaps you could point out which UAV strike it was that triggered 9/11?

Yeah armed UAVs I caught that, used in a war. Next.

Name one without it being something stupid like a mine or a cruise missile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

The argument that acting outside of the scope of international law and ignoring human rights to prosecute a seemingly innefectual and expensive campaign of anti terrorist activities using tools designed for war is a good idea is pretty foolish in the year 2012. We've done it. We've seen the effects. We've seen the aftermath. It's failed. Every hiding place we blow up several more are created in new countries, this is effectively an infinite war and has led to the destabilization of the entire region. My argument is that we should probably stop pretending otherwise. The half measures of distributed targeted violence and full measures of full scale occupancy didn't work. It's time to address the fundamental causes rather than the symptoms.

So if we stopped using UAVs, we'd stop having people trying to terrorize us?

Perhaps you could point out which UAV strike it was that triggered 9/11?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Just find your own, I'm tired of pointing these out for people. These conversations aren't ever worth having.

Playing Devils advocate here as a hearty supporter of glorious remote controlled death, did Shuma actually say he is against us using drones?

I never got that from his posts, I just thought he was pointing out some negatives, not saying outright we shouldn't use them.

 mattyrm wrote:
Playing Devils advocate here as a hearty supporter of glorious remote controlled death, did Shuma actually say he is against us using drones?

I never got that from his posts, I just thought he was pointing out some negatives, not saying outright we shouldn't use them.

I endorse drone use, just not the government excuses for them or the lies people like frazzle or seaward use to support them (lies that include things like defaming anyone who questions how they're used).

 ShumaGorath wrote:


Just find your own, I'm tired of pointing these out for people. These conversations aren't ever worth having.

As I've pointed out from grizzled experience on the OT forum, I generally find that if a sentence starts with "So" its not worth reading.

"So what your saying is...." /insert gak nobody said

The thing I find most fascinating, is that its right there in black and white above your post, and yet people insist on doing it all day every day. Here Ill start us with another one.

"I agree with Drone use"

"So...... we drop napalm on nuns?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Playing Devils advocate here as a hearty supporter of glorious remote controlled death, did Shuma actually say he is against us using drones?

I never got that from his posts, I just thought he was pointing out some negatives, not saying outright we shouldn't use them.

I endorse drone use, just not the government excuses for them or the lies people like frazzle or seaward use to support them (lies that include things like defaming anyone who questions how they're used).

Yeah I figured as much.. makes the last ten posts above kinda pointless then eh?

Wait you endorse drone use but are arguing that they cause terrorism? OK...

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Yeah armed UAVs I caught that, used in a war. Next.

Name one without it being something stupid like a mine or a cruise missile.

K

OIF History Brief dated May 2003 declassified May 2013 wrote:22 Mar (2003)
3rd ID clashes with Iraqi troops, killing 45 of the enemy. 3rd ID bypasses urban areas and resistance,
penetrating 150 miles into Iraq. UK and I MEF close on Basrah. Spotted Iraqi resistance grows along the
main supply route, especially at the Euphrates River crossing at An Nasiriyah. A Predator unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV) destroys a ZSU 23-4 radar-guided anti-aircraft artillery vehicle outside the town of AI
Amarah. This is the first armed UAV kill in Iraq.
9

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait you endorse drone use but are arguing that they cause terrorism? OK...

Well, they obviously do Frazzled. And nobody endorses them as heartily as me.

The culture in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan and such is all about revenge. If a drone drops a bomb on 5 innocent men accidentally, then a buck says twenty that many of those mens kids will pick up an AK47 and try to bring it. Thats how it works.. surely you can understand that?

I don't think either of you are wrong, I think you are doing to old dakka trick of drawing two lines in the sand far too obviously. With the old "So, what you are saying is......" line.

You can heartily accept drone use should continue, whilst acknowledging that there can be one or two downsides surely?

For example, I think we should bomb the fething gak out of people, a part of me thinks we should bomb Afghanistan right down to the fething reptiles.... but I'm well aware that this can lead to major issues in the surrounding area.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Yeah armed UAVs I caught that, used in a war. Next.

Name one without it being something stupid like a mine or a cruise missile.

K

OIF History Brief dated May 2003 declassified May 2013 wrote:22 Mar (2003)
3rd ID clashes with Iraqi troops, killing 45 of the enemy. 3rd ID bypasses urban areas and resistance,
penetrating 150 miles into Iraq. UK and I MEF close on Basrah. Spotted Iraqi resistance grows along the
main supply route, especially at the Euphrates River crossing at An Nasiriyah. A Predator unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV) destroys a ZSU 23-4 radar-guided anti-aircraft artillery vehicle outside the town of AI
Amarah. This is the first armed UAV kill in Iraq.
9

Hey you know I was actually there for that. We moved into Basrah in March supported by I MEF.

I was there for the opening of shock and awe.. it was the best free fireworks display I ever attended.

 AustonT wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Yeah armed UAVs I caught that, used in a war. Next.

Name one without it being something stupid like a mine or a cruise missile.

K

OIF History Brief dated May 2003 declassified May 2013 wrote:22 Mar (2003)
3rd ID clashes with Iraqi troops, killing 45 of the enemy. 3rd ID bypasses urban areas and resistance,
penetrating 150 miles into Iraq. UK and I MEF close on Basrah. Spotted Iraqi resistance grows along the
main supply route, especially at the Euphrates River crossing at An Nasiriyah. A Predator unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV) destroys a ZSU 23-4 radar-guided anti-aircraft artillery vehicle outside the town of AI
Amarah. This is the first armed UAV kill in Iraq.
9

There we go, was that so hard? Now I know something I didn't. They used the predator drone to fire a missile in the quick little war that preceded their use as a fire support and assassination mechanism against extremists and insurgents. Everyone is better for this being shared, rather than aggressive bluster. Now we can actually talk about how irrelevant that strike was now that we've established that I was wrong.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Just find your own, I'm tired of pointing these out for people. These conversations aren't ever worth having.

Oh, I see. You're saying you weren't actually saying that if we didn't use drones, people in that region would like us more.

Yet...people didn't like us before we started using drones. Pakistan wasn't all about the US prior to us starting to hit gak in Waziristan. Nor was Yemen.

What's your proposed alternative, short of what Frazzled mentioned before, just leaving terrorists to continue hopping merrily about? We go in with a team, the outcry's even more massive than hitting something with a drone. You may want to look up Pakistani reactions to the bin Laden raid if you believe otherwise.

We can't kill these guys with drones. We can't kill them with raids. So what are you proposing?

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Now we can actually talk about how irrelevant that strike was now that we've established that I was wrong.

If it was irrelevant why'd you say it in the first place? and then proceed to vehemently defend it. It only highlights how willing you are to make gak up when you have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh, I see. You're saying you weren't actually saying that if we didn't use drones, people in that region would like us more.

No, I'm saying that by using drones so much, without sanction by operation governments, without culpability, and without regard to sovereignty we make people like us less.

Yet...people didn't like us before we started using drones. Pakistan wasn't all about the US prior to us starting to hit gak in Waziristan. Nor was Yemen.

Nope. In fact, it's about the same. Europe certainly isn't a big fan of us now though, nor is egypt or turkey. We've lost plenty of our high ground in South American too. Everyone can see this happening, not just the guys who might have a drone above them.

What's your proposed alternative, short of what Frazzled mentioned before, just leaving terrorists to continue hopping merrily about? We go in with a team, the outcry's even more massive than hitting something with a drone. You may want to look up Pakistani reactions to the bin Laden raid if you believe otherwise.

Stop patronizing me every time we speak. It's obnoxious, especially from someone with so blisteringly simple a world view. I propose bringing to the U.N. a measure to update war doctrine and the classification of military's and combatants. I also propose the creation of a multilateral military police force that can act against terrorist elements in failing or weak states without the permission of said states. The biggest problem with the U.S. strong arming everything in the mideast and africa is that we're doing it alone. We're the sole target and we're bleeding for everyone elses safety while operating outside of the law and at the mercy of corrupt contractors or governments. We're also fething it up.

We can't kill these guys with drones. We can't kill them with raids. So what are you proposing?

Where did I say that? Seriously?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Now we can actually talk about how irrelevant that strike was now that we've established that I was wrong.

If it was irrelevant why'd you say it in the first place? and then proceed to vehemently defend it. It only highlights how willing you are to make gak up when you have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh, I'm saying that using them in a weaponized fashion to bombard an effectively crippled and useless opponent for three days before using them in a COIN strategy for a decade doesn't really impact the fact that they've never really seen actual war and their primary use is and has always been in killing people who don't have realistic military means. Their use in shock and awe is pointless because, lets be honest, hot air balloons with people dropping grenades would have worked out just as well there. That was a war, certainly, but it was hardly against an opponent prepared to shoot them down or particularly aware of their use in the first place. It's now down to the realm of my personal opinion, but that was hardly the teeth cutting of an actual war I would want to pass the test of "This thing has seen war".

 ShumaGorath wrote:

No, I'm saying that by using drones so much, without sanction by operation governments, without culpability, and without regard to sovereignty we make people like us less.

And I've said, repeatedly, they didn't like us before. Nothing much has changed as a result of the use of drones.

Nope. In fact, it's about the same. Europe certainly isn't a big fan of us now though, nor is egypt or turkey. We've lost plenty of our high ground in South American too. Everyone can see this happening, not just the guys who might have a drone above them.

You attribute all of this to drones? That's impressive. Not as impressive as if you had any actual documentation to back it up, but impressive nonetheless. I somewhat suspect our "lowered standing in the world" has a lot less to do with the specific use of drones than with military adventurism in general.

Stop patronizing me every time we speak. It's obnoxious, especially from someone with so blisteringly simple a world view. I propose bringing to the U.N.

Destined to work like a charm.

a measure to update war doctrine and the classification of military's and combatants. I also propose the creation of a multilateral military police force that can act against terrorist elements in failing or weak states without the permission of said states.

So sort of like NATO in Libya or Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are you under the impression that we turned away other countries wanting to get in on shooting terrorist elements in those latter cases? We got the people who were actually willing to come on board.

And what happens when this proposed multinational military police force realizes that drone strikes are a hell of a lot less risky than sending in teams of snake-eaters?

The biggest problem with the U.S. strong arming everything in the mideast and africa is that we're doing it alone. We're the sole target and we're bleeding for everyone elses safety while operating outside of the law and at the mercy of corrupt contractors or governments. We're also fething it up.

I don't really know what to say to the first bolded claim, other than pointing you towards Wikipedia.

As to the second...I'd say we're pretty successful at it, actually. Most of those drone strikes hit what they're aiming at.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
The issue(at least according to the UN and the Air Force members I know) is that Drones can be sent in to kill without exposing our own soldiers. Essentially, the 'issue' is that it's unfair.

I think there is some concept of honourable combat in which the aggressor at least exposes himself to some kind of danger. In that concept, drones rank with snipers as people killing defenceless targets from afar, without risk.

Interestingly, westerners tend to see suicide bombers as unfair, though their level of risk is 100%.

Oh, no doubt. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong in either direction, just that it's what the arguments against drones essentially boil down to.

I thought the argument boiled down to the fact that were indiscriminate, as characterizes all aerial weapons. Certainly, there's a weird honor thing going on too, but I've yet to see that as more than a footnote or a part of an argument stating a dwindling level of morality involved in western warfare.

Not really a footnote as I understand it. Several countries have asked the UN to make it illegal( or at least sanctioned) to use Drones as strike weapons for the very reason that "it's unfair that they don't have to risk their soldiers" in addition to being indiscriminate. Of course, the UN's done squat about it since it's coming from non-Permanent Security Council members.

Of course, I could be reading in to it wrong since most of the info about it I get is filtered through Military channels and members.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Than why are we harming our goodwill in the rest of the world to do nothing.

Largely because it's not doing nothing. Are you really under the impression that we're just picking people out at random to target with drones? We're hitting guys actively involved in the planning and execution of terrorist activity.

Is your screen a funhouse mirror? How are you getting this gak from what I'm saying? Where did I attribute all of it to the drones? The answer is I didn't.

Well, you actually did, right here:

ShumaGorath wrote:No, I'm saying that by using drones so much, without sanction by operation governments, without culpability, and without regard to sovereignty we make people like us less.

What coalition? That was a unilateral action that had us pleading for others to help. What is needed is a something that is binding. Neither of those cases were of stateless terrorist forces either, both were the overthrow of totalitarian governments.

That is, factually, incorrect as it comes.

Contributed troops to Afghanistan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force#Contributing_nations
Contributed troops to Iraq: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq
Libya was largely NATO members other than us.

Yep, we killed a lot more than we lost in vietnam too. Sure did win there. You are useless to communicate with, this is dumb. You're just twisting everything I say to mean something else and every example you bring unrelated at best.

I suspect you're finding me so difficult to communicate with because I deal primarily within the realm of reality.

 mattyrm wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Those people are what I like to call 'idiots.'

Agreed. All is fair in love and war.

I also don't see why we should get so pissed about the occasional glut of civilian casualties when our enemies actively target our civilians. They say all American/British citizens are legitimate targets. I mean, Jesus, at least we fething TRY not to kill people that don't deserve it.

Now, clearly I'm far too experienced to not be aware that the most important aspect of winning an occupation such as the Afghan conflict and the wider war on terror is winning the hearts and minds of the populace, which is why we have strict ROE and always try to keep civilian casualties down to a minimum. But I dont think its the end of the world when we occasionally feth up. I certainly don't think we should stop using the drones. They work, they are awesome.

At the end of the day, we already occupy the moral high ground. Most Muslims don't see us as heartless baby killers, they are aware we don't intentionally kill the innocent. Only the most extreme fethers think we eat babies... and we aren't going to win them over anyway! I don't see why we should freak out over the occasional wayward drone attack.

feth em. I want us to win, not worry about playing fair with a bunch of savage mother fethers who never do.

Oh, and have a side hobby of throwing acid in little girls faces for the crime of learning to read.

This probably should have ended the thread. Well said Matty.

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Than why are we harming our goodwill in the rest of the world to do nothing.

Largely because it's not doing nothing. Are you really under the impression that we're just picking people out at random to target with drones? We're hitting guys actively involved in the planning and execution of terrorist activity.

Is your screen a funhouse mirror? How are you getting this gak from what I'm saying? Where did I attribute all of it to the drones? The answer is I didn't.

Well, you actually did, right here:

ShumaGorath wrote:No, I'm saying that by using drones so much, without sanction by operation governments, without culpability, and without regard to sovereignty we make people like us less.

What coalition? That was a unilateral action that had us pleading for others to help. What is needed is a something that is binding. Neither of those cases were of stateless terrorist forces either, both were the overthrow of totalitarian governments.

That is, factually, incorrect as it comes.

Contributed troops to Afghanistan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force#Contributing_nations
Contributed troops to Iraq: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq
Libya was largely NATO members other than us.

Yep, we killed a lot more than we lost in vietnam too. Sure did win there. You are useless to communicate with, this is dumb. You're just twisting everything I say to mean something else and every example you bring unrelated at best.

Oh look, someone is pretending that the coalition of the willing had a meaningful and material impact on the conflict in Afghanistan. A conflict that didn't even have coalition support (outside of the UK sending a tenth what we had sent) after the first five years. We sure were lucky for luxumborgs 10 soldiers! Maybe this really is a funhouse, I'm seeing oddities everywhere. He's even pretending that Libya was predominantly the work of non US nato forces, despite the fact that we had the most material assets used in the conflict!

I suspect you're finding me so difficult to communicate with because I deal primarily within the realm of reality.

No, you really don't. You're not even close to it. You don't even seem to know where it is.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Oh look, someone is pretending that the coalition of the willing had a meaningful and material impact on the conflict in Afghanistan.

I was responding to your claim that Iraq and Afghanistan were unilateral. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Who gives a about "fair" in war. Drones are awesome, they let us get the job done without exposing any of our own troops to return fire. Anyone who's whining about "honor" or "fairness" can go themselves.

The real problem with drones is that, under the current system, it makes it too easy to get over the psychological aspect of killing people. Flying a drone through a TV screen dehumanizes the enemy and turns them into little more than targets in a video game. The result is that the drone operators are too willing to fire on the slightest hint of a target. Now, you can't do much about the video game problem, but what you CAN do is add proper oversight for the drones. And from what we've seen so far that oversight just isn't there, all you have is a bunch of drone pilots playing real life Modern Warfare 99999.

 Peregrine wrote:
Flying a drone through a TV screen dehumanizes the enemy and turns them into little more than targets in a video game. The result is that the drone operators are too willing to fire on the slightest hint of a target. Now, you can't do much about the video game problem, but what you CAN do is add proper oversight for the drones. And from what we've seen so far that oversight just isn't there, all you have is a bunch of drone pilots playing real life Modern Warfare 99999.

I largely disagree with what you have said here, but I acknowledge the problem exists. Its largely the same people that can't or wont empathize in person either; which is a symptom of society IMO. Leaders easily identify those guys and they receive more attention. I myself have never had any trouble empathizing, nor have I confused my work with a video game.

 AustonT wrote:
I largely disagree with what you have said here, but I acknowledge the problem exists. Its largely the same people that can't or wont empathize in person either; which is a symptom of society IMO. Leaders easily identify those guys and they receive more attention. I myself have never had any trouble empathizing, nor have I confused my work with a video game.

I wish I could remember where I saw the article, but this actually is a problem to the point that even the military has recognized the need for more oversight on targeting decisions. And it wasn't really a character flaw of the individual pilot, but just a basic thing about human nature. There's always degrees of empathy and greater or lesser reluctance to kill. Fighting up close with knives is obviously different from shooting a rifle at a target you can barely tell is a person, and putting the drone pilot thousands of miles away behind a grainy TV screen makes it even easier to see the target as just that: an abstract target to be destroyed, not a person.


(And by "your work" do you mean that you actually fly/flew armed drones?)

 Peregrine wrote:

(And by "your work" do you mean that you actually fly/flew armed drones?)

That's what he means. A fair few folks in this thread are the BTDT type.

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Oh look, someone is pretending that the coalition of the willing had a meaningful and material impact on the conflict in Afghanistan.

I was responding to your claim that Iraq and Afghanistan were unilateral. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

u·ni·lat·er·al   [yoo-nuh-lat-er-uhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
relating to, occurring on, or involving one side only: unilateral development; a unilateral approach.
2.
undertaken or done by or on behalf of one side, party, or faction only; not mutual: a unilateral decision; unilateral disarmament.

The UK consistently had one tenth our presence and all the other coalition forces combined at their peak barely reached that. Halfway into the war it was the UK and the U.S. alone with the UK heavily limiting their operations in scope. If you don't consider a conflict that is 90% or more the purview of a single nation unilateral than you're being worthlessly adherent to the direct definition of the term. By that same use no conflict could ever be unilateral due to the existence of third parties that are common in all wars (contractors, PMCs, advisers, diplomats, observers, etc).

 ShumaGorath wrote:

The UK consistently had one tenth our presence and all the other coalition forces combined at their peak barely reached that. Halfway into the war it was the UK and the U.S. alone

I'm asking, honestly, why you don't just look for information before posting inaccurate claims? Unless the "halfway point" of either war was 2009, you're simply, and demonstrably, wrong.

with the UK heavily limiting their operations in scope. If you don't consider a conflict that is 90% or more the purview of a single nation unilateral than you're being worthlessly adherent to the direct definition of the term. By that same use no conflict could ever be unilateral due to the existence of third parties that are common in all wars (contractors, PMCs, advisers, diplomats, observers, etc).

I'd consider military operations that have the military support of over thirty nations apiece, however token that support was, to be far from unilateral, yes, especially in the context of the rest of the world disliking us because we initiated those operations.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
The issue(at least according to the UN and the Air Force members I know) is that Drones can be sent in to kill without exposing our own soldiers. Essentially, the 'issue' is that it's unfair.

I think there is some concept of honourable combat in which the aggressor at least exposes himself to some kind of danger. In that concept, drones rank with snipers as people killing defenceless targets from afar, without risk.

Interestingly, westerners tend to see suicide bombers as unfair, though their level of risk is 100%.

Oh, no doubt. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong in either direction, just that it's what the arguments against drones essentially boil down to.

It also raises a valid point. Without the element of risk it can be argued that the decision to use drones can more easily and casually arrived at, thus proliferating conflict.

 Peregrine wrote:



(And by "your work" do you mean that you actually fly/flew armed drones?)

Yeah I did, my current avatar is a picture of one of our birds. I'm currently on a lengthy sabbatical.

 AustonT wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:



(And by "your work" do you mean that you actually fly/flew armed drones?)

Yeah I did, my current avatar is a picture of one of our birds. I'm currently on a lengthy sabbatical.

Huh. Well, I congratulate you on holding yourself to a higher standard. I just wish I could be confident that all of the other people flying those drones have the same standards.

I'm asking, honestly, why you don't just look for information before posting inaccurate claims? Unless the "halfway point" of either war was 2009, you're simply, and demonstrably, wrong.

At the end of 2008 the only material, non "token" national support outside of the UK was Australia with 2000 soldiers. We had fifty times that number. That's about as token as it gets (Well, not really, el salvador and romania were there, but they don't even get token status, they might as well have been tourists). In 2007 most of the rest of the coalition was either staying on base, defended airports, or stayed in compound within green zones.

I'd consider military operations that have the military support of over thirty nations apiece, however token that support was, to be far from unilateral, yes, especially in the context of the rest of the world disliking us because we initiated those operations.

I'd consider token support to be exactly that, token. Non committal and likely there to secure concessions by the U.S. government in other areas. Certainly virtually every member of the coalition has now come out, officially, against the war in Iraq. Many of them are rather pissed off at us for lying to them about the weapons of mass destruction.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I'm asking, honestly, why you don't just look for information before posting inaccurate claims? Unless the "halfway point" of either war was 2009, you're simply, and demonstrably, wrong.

at the end of 2008 the only material, non "token" national support outside of the UK was Australia with 2000 soldiers. We had fifty times that number. That's about as token as it gets (Well, not really, el salvador and romania were there, but they don't even get token status, they might as well have been tourists). In 2007 most of the rest of the coalition was either staying on base, defended airports, or stayed in compound within green zones.

I'd consider military operations that have the military support of over thirty nations apiece, however token that support was, to be far from unilateral, yes, especially in the context of the rest of the world disliking us because we initiated those operations.

I'd consider token support to be exactly that, token. Non committal and likely there to secure concessions by the U.S. government in other areas. Certainly virtually every member of the coalition has now come out, officially, against the war in Iraq. Many of them are rather pissed off at us for lying to them about the weapons of mass destruction.

Australia only needs 2,000 soldiers. They're crazy.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I'd consider token support to be exactly that, token. Non committal and likely there to secure concessions by the U.S. government in other areas. Certainly virtually every member of the coalition has now come out, officially, against the war in Iraq. Many of them are rather pissed off at us for lying to them about the weapons of mass destruction.

And you think this would be any different with a UN military police organization...how, exactly?

The US does the bulk of the UN's heavy lifting. Has since Korea, will into the foreseeable future. When the UN wants something done - which is rare, incidentally, and why the notion of a UN-controlled force being the only guys who get to dictate when someone deserves a Hellfire up their ass is laughable, or else unaware of the function of the Security Council - they call us. They don't go to Albania asking for the best and the brightest.

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I'd consider token support to be exactly that, token. Non committal and likely there to secure concessions by the U.S. government in other areas. Certainly virtually every member of the coalition has now come out, officially, against the war in Iraq. Many of them are rather pissed off at us for lying to them about the weapons of mass destruction.

And you think this would be any different with a UN military police organization...how, exactly?

The US does the bulk of the UN's heavy lifting. Has since Korea, will into the foreseeable future. When the UN wants something done - which is rare, incidentally, and why the notion of a UN-controlled force being the only guys who get to dictate when someone deserves a Hellfire up their ass is laughable, or else unaware of the function of the Security Council - they call us. They don't go to Albania asking for the best and the brightest.

The creation of an offensive international body is probably much less likely than the clarification and signing of treaties that agree on the classification of people as combatants or civilians (something that is badly needed). That doesn't mean that an attempt would be a wasted effort, there is a serious problem with unilateral action or inaction against stateless insurgent of terrorist violence. A problem currently lacking a solution since the U.S. has proven that it can't and won't handle it alone.

Also, they don't call us. Who called us for Iraq? Last I checked we lost our best and brightest card after Mission Accomplished and Yellow Cake.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I'd consider token support to be exactly that, token. Non committal and likely there to secure concessions by the U.S. government in other areas. Certainly virtually every member of the coalition has now come out, officially, against the war in Iraq. Many of them are rather pissed off at us for lying to them about the weapons of mass destruction.

And you think this would be any different with a UN military police organization...how, exactly?

The US does the bulk of the UN's heavy lifting. Has since Korea, will into the foreseeable future. When the UN wants something done - which is rare, incidentally, and why the notion of a UN-controlled force being the only guys who get to dictate when someone deserves a Hellfire up their ass is laughable, or else unaware of the function of the Security Council - they call us. They don't go to Albania asking for the best and the brightest.

The creation of an offensive international body is probably much less likely than the clarification and signing of treaties that agree on the classification of people as combatants or civilians (something that is badly needed). That doesn't mean that an attempt would be a wasted effort, there is a serious problem with unilateral action or inaction against stateless insurgent of terrorist violence. A problem currently lacking a solution since the U.S. has proven that it can't and won't handle it alone.

Also, they don't call us. Who called us for Iraq? Last I checked we lost our best and brightest card after Mission Accomplished and Yellow Cake.

So only an international body can defend the interest of the USA? When was the last time the UN sent troops or did anything on a military basis? When was the last time terrorists were attacked by a UN mission? Hell the UN protects terrorists. Hezzbullah fires rockets right under the nose of UN peacekeepers.
Any internaitonal body would include the countries housing those terrorists. What if they say no?

So only an international body can defend the interest of the USA?[/quot]

I see, spending one trillian dollars and spending a decade blowing up civilians is protecting ourselves. I thought you were an isolationist today?

When was the last time the UN sent troops or did anything on a military basis? When was the last time terrorists were attacked by a UN mission? Hell the UN protects terrorists. Hezzbullah fires rockets right under the nose of UN peacekeepers.

And Israel fires missiles back. I think the UN is still trying to figure out who the terrorists are there. I say they both are.

Any international body would include the countries housing those terrorists. What if they say no?

I said the first time I mentioned it that it was by design to be used on cross border threats when the nations those terrorists are in refuse military aid or the action of their neighbors. Organizations like FARC, Al-Queda affiliates, and the indian maoist insurgency aren't going to be dealt with by their host nation precisely because they're sometimes colluding to protect them. As it stands I don't think the U.N. is a very strong body for international law making or enforcement, and it's that by design. It's a forum for airing complaints. Ideally, given how interconnected the world has become, that would change. As it stands the security council doesn't really make sense anymore in the first place. It doesn't represent the centers of power globally anymore.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

So only an international body can defend the interest of the USA?[/quot]

I see, spending one trillian dollars and spending a decade blowing up civilians is protecting ourselves. I thought you were an isolationist today?

When was the last time the UN sent troops or did anything on a military basis? When was the last time terrorists were attacked by a UN mission? Hell the UN protects terrorists. Hezzbullah fires rockets right under the nose of UN peacekeepers.

And Israel fires missiles back. I think the UN is still trying to figure out who the terrorists are there. I say they both are.
.

Yes... Self defense is so bloody terrible you've told us ad nauseum.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

So only an international body can defend the interest of the USA?[/quot]

I see, spending one trillian dollars and spending a decade blowing up civilians is protecting ourselves. I thought you were an isolationist today?

When was the last time the UN sent troops or did anything on a military basis? When was the last time terrorists were attacked by a UN mission? Hell the UN protects terrorists. Hezzbullah fires rockets right under the nose of UN peacekeepers.

And Israel fires missiles back. I think the UN is still trying to figure out who the terrorists are there. I say they both are.
.

Yes... Self defense is so bloody terrible you've told us ad nauseum.

Israel cannot really honestly argue a case of self defence anymore. The pressure Palestinians are placed under is extreme. there is an argument to say this is deliberate because to lessen the pressure on the Palestinians would reduce their urge fro revenge, without the ongoing rocket attacks the Palestinians would have a much better chance to force Israel to the table via the international community. However by such actions as denial of basic commodities, constant humiliation and atrocities such as the recent gunning down of fisherman who strayed beyond the derisory 3 mile corridor in which they have to fish perpetuates anger.

Israel can survive terrorists indefinitely, but they would be unable to oppose a Palestinian peace leader in the model of Mohammandas Ghando or Aung San Suu Kyi, so they prevent one from rising.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

So only an international body can defend the interest of the USA?[/quot]

I see, spending one trillian dollars and spending a decade blowing up civilians is protecting ourselves. I thought you were an isolationist today?

When was the last time the UN sent troops or did anything on a military basis? When was the last time terrorists were attacked by a UN mission? Hell the UN protects terrorists. Hezzbullah fires rockets right under the nose of UN peacekeepers.

And Israel fires missiles back. I think the UN is still trying to figure out who the terrorists are there. I say they both are.
.

Yes... Self defense is so bloody terrible you've told us ad nauseum.

Yep, the kind of self defense that killed over 100 Palestinian children in a week in their last Gaza war! Lets have a moment of silence for the 13 Israelis that died in that conflict. This is all pretty off topic though, Israels drone program is pretty amateur.

 Platuan4th wrote:
The issue(at least according to the UN and the Air Force members I know) is that Drones can be sent in to kill without exposing our own soldiers. Essentially, the 'issue' is that it's unfair.

Nobody ever won a war by dying for their cause. You win it by making the other guys die for theirs.
One side having drones means that they are already 1-up on this.

War isn't about "fair" - it isn't tiddlywinks after all.

When a conflict breaks out between two drone using countries I wonder if we'll be so non-chalant about it, especially if it involves us. When some other has their version of Predator drones firing on cities and towns we care about I doubt that 'well, everything goes' will actually be the response given. When the headlines are "20 soldiers and 800 civilians were killed this month", we might start seeing where the issue might lie.


If how a war was fought wasn't important we would train our soldiers to rape the women, butcher the survivors, and use human shields, just to name a few, as all of those things are quite demoralizes the enemy. In the end how we fight wars actually is important; jus in bellum and jus ad bellum are serious considerations.

When a conflict breaks out between two drone using countries I wonder if we'll be so non-chalant about it, especially if it involves us. When some other has their version of Predator drones firing on cities and towns we care about I doubt that 'well, everything goes' will actually be the response given. When the headlines are "20 soldiers and 800 civilians were killed this month", we might start seeing where the issue might lie.

Reaper and predator drones would be close to useless against any up to date military. They're slow, they don't possess stealth technologies, they're not particularly resilient, and they don't carry weapons that can kill before being within range of most up to date anti air weapons. Fighting a technologically capable enemy sort of invalidates the kind of warfare those drones are useful for in the first place. The sentinel is built with actual anti state capabilities in mind.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

When a conflict breaks out between two drone using countries I wonder if we'll be so non-chalant about it, especially if it involves us. When some other has their version of Predator drones firing on cities and towns we care about I doubt that 'well, everything goes' will actually be the response given. When the headlines are "20 soldiers and 800 civilians were killed this month", we might start seeing where the issue might lie.

Reaper and predator drones would be close to useless against any up to date military. They're slow, they don't possess stealth technologies, they're not particularly resilient, and they don't carry weapons that can kill before being within range of most up to date anti air weapons. Fighting a technologically capable enemy sort of invalidates the kind of warfare those drones are useful for in the first place. The sentinel is built with actual anti state capabilities in mind.

Do you not think more advanced drones are being worked on? That we are just stopping at what we have? I suppose it is my fault for saying 'their version of a Predator', as I made it to specific an example. This is only the beginning of unmanned vehicles, not the end.

 Ahtman wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

When a conflict breaks out between two drone using countries I wonder if we'll be so non-chalant about it, especially if it involves us. When some other has their version of Predator drones firing on cities and towns we care about I doubt that 'well, everything goes' will actually be the response given. When the headlines are "20 soldiers and 800 civilians were killed this month", we might start seeing where the issue might lie.

Reaper and predator drones would be close to useless against any up to date military. They're slow, they don't possess stealth technologies, they're not particularly resilient, and they don't carry weapons that can kill before being within range of most up to date anti air weapons. Fighting a technologically capable enemy sort of invalidates the kind of warfare those drones are useful for in the first place. The sentinel is built with actual anti state capabilities in mind.

Do you not think more advanced drones are being worked on? That we are just stopping at what we have? I suppose it is my fault for saying 'their version of a Predator', as I made it to specific an example. This is only the beginning of unmanned vehicles, not the end.

They're certainly working on more, but the conceptual role of the slow moving omnipresent missile carrier isn't all that useful in a modern battle between equal nations. To reach the same kill tallies it'd have to be targeting military assets within civilian populations, but the kind of surveillance required to take targets of opportunities like that takes time and proximity. Two things that a high flying stealth drone like the sentinel wouldn't really be capable of and two things that would ensure a reaper got shot down the moment it entered radar. In an equal fight the most useful drones would be duplicates of already existing roles, extremely fast and high flying stealth craft like the space plane or old U2 or fighter-like strike craft like the sentinel. Roles that don't require a lot of decision making and which have high physical stress or levels of danger.

F-22's and Apache gunships are also useless I gather? Or would they be useful until we find a way to make a practical unmanned equivalent? Perhaps I am using the wrong term? There are pilots, just not in the vehicles themselves. I'm not talking about AI machines, here.

 Ahtman wrote:
F-22's and Apache gunships are also useless I gather? Or would they be useful until we find a way to make an practical unmanned equivalent?

What the feth is with this thread and people taking giant and ridiculous logical jumps to state ridiculous straw man arguments? It's happened like 40 times. Hell, I directly said that the usefull drones would be like stealth capable strike craft. SOMETHING THAT THE F-22 EXEMPLIFIES as one of the only examples on earth.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
F-22's and Apache gunships are also useless I gather? Or would they be useful until we find a way to make an practical unmanned equivalent?

What the feth is with this thread and people taking giant and ridiculous logical jumps to state ridiculous straw man arguments? It's happened like 40 times. Hell, I directly said that the usefull drones would be like stealth capable strike craft. SOMETHING THAT THE F-22 EXEMPLIFIES as one of the only examples on earth.

For some reason half of what I wrote go deleted so I will just simply say this: There is concern that overuse of drones will put soldiers in the background and civilians at the fore. I'm not stating unequivocally that that is the future we are destined for, but it is a concern to some. I think you might need to take a break, you are losing your composure it seems. You have got yourself into your mode where you see everything as an attack and so are lashing out at any post.

 Ahtman wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
F-22's and Apache gunships are also useless I gather? Or would they be useful until we find a way to make an practical unmanned equivalent?

What the feth is with this thread and people taking giant and ridiculous logical jumps to state ridiculous straw man arguments? It's happened like 40 times. Hell, I directly said that the usefull drones would be like stealth capable strike craft. SOMETHING THAT THE F-22 EXEMPLIFIES as one of the only examples on earth.

For some reason half of what I wrote go deleted so I will just simply say this: There is concern that overuse of drones will put soldiers in the background and civilians at the fore. I'm not stating unequivocally that that is the future we are destined for, but it is a concern to some. I think you might need to take a break, you are losing your composure it seems. You have got yourself into your mode where you see everything as an attack and so are lashing out at any post.

You sarcastically dismissed what I said in the first 9 words of your post and implied that you didn't even read what you were responding to by mentioning the F-22. If that isn't an attack I'm not really sure what is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In an effort to get back on track though, if we assume that we're battling an inferior opponent (one to which we have air dominance) that is already an issue. In the thread about world war two we already established the capacity for otherwise honorable states to engage in total war, and like sebster brought up atrocities like carpet bombing or firebombing are part in parcel with that (and seemingly ineffective). In a battle between two fictional forces using predominantly drone controlled air forces what we could see is a reduction in overall death and a focus on the destruction of purely military assets. A force whose drones are destroyed is thusly without forces to utilize and would in theory surrender without actually having lost many men. It's a weird conversation though, as it's very unlikely that two nuclear armed states would go to war with eachother in that fashion in the first place. I think the future of drone warfare is in combating stateless fighting forces like terrorists or narcos. Something that will always be distasteful because it's law enforcement with a missile and a camera.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
F-22's and Apache gunships are also useless I gather? Or would they be useful until we find a way to make an practical unmanned equivalent?

What the feth is with this thread and people taking giant and ridiculous logical jumps to state ridiculous straw man arguments? It's happened like 40 times. Hell, I directly said that the usefull drones would be like stealth capable strike craft. SOMETHING THAT THE F-22 EXEMPLIFIES as one of the only examples on earth.

The F-22's not a strike aircraft. Not even close. It was built with the extremely short-sighted "not a pound for air-to-ground" motto, and it is, in fact, proving to largely be useless so far. Not to mention its tendency to cause medical problems for its pilots. Raptor Cough sucks, from what I hear.

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
F-22's and Apache gunships are also useless I gather? Or would they be useful until we find a way to make an practical unmanned equivalent?

What the feth is with this thread and people taking giant and ridiculous logical jumps to state ridiculous straw man arguments? It's happened like 40 times. Hell, I directly said that the usefull drones would be like stealth capable strike craft. SOMETHING THAT THE F-22 EXEMPLIFIES as one of the only examples on earth.

The F-22's not a strike aircraft. Not even close. It was built with the extremely short-sighted "not a pound for air-to-ground" motto, and it is, in fact, proving to largely be useless so far. Not to mention its tendency to cause medical problems for its pilots. Raptor Cough sucks, from what I hear.

I don't understand how the f-22 isn't classified as a strike craft. Does it not carry surface to ground weaponry? I had thought that one of it's theoretical roles was as a strike craft in areas with enemy radar cover.

:edit: In looking up it's original design program strike craft was one of it's sub roles. I can see how it wouldn't have done much of that by now though. It hasn't done much of anything except suffocate people. As of right now it's just a really expensive chair/plastic bag over your head.

 Ahtman wrote:
For some reason half of what I wrote go deleted so I will just simply say this: There is concern that overuse of drones will put soldiers in the background and civilians at the fore. I'm not stating unequivocally that that is the future we are destined for, but it is a concern to some. I think you might need to take a break, you are losing your composure it seems. You have got yourself into your mode where you see everything as an attack and so are lashing out at any post.

Except your entire point ignores the fact that the modern role for drones can't exist in a war between equals. We have problems with collateral damage because you have drone pilots "playing god" with the ability to sit above the battlefield beyond and decide who lives or dies. The problem isn't the fact that they aren't getting shot at directly, it's that we've given them a "point and click" weapon that makes killing easy, but failed to give proper oversight to make sure that every target is a legitimate one.

In a real war that "playing god" role instantly disappears because a Predator-style drone is useless against modern AA weapons. On a battlefield between equals you can't just sit there waiting and laughing about who you're about to kill, every mission has to be carefully planned in advance against a specific valuable target. You aren't going to have drones flying around blowing up random civilians who "looked like they had a gun", you're going to have drones attacking high-value military targets to cripple the enemy's ability to fight back.

Hey, you know, this whole "attack high value targets that are too well defended for manned aircraft to hit" mission sounds kind of familiar. Didn't we invent something to do it already? Oh yeah, they're called cruise missiles.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I don't understand how the f-22 isn't classified as a strike craft. Does it not carry surface to ground weaponry? I had thought that one of it's theoretical roles was as a strike craft in areas with enemy radar cover.

:edit: In looking up it's original design program strike craft was one of it's sub roles. I can see how it wouldn't have done much of that by now though. It hasn't done much of anything except suffocate people.

It wasn't designed as such, and its air-to-ground ordinance payload maximum is pathetic. It also needs somebody on the ground or another aircraft doing laser designation if it's dropping laser-guided munitions.

It was designed as a pure air superiority fighter, and we'll need those if we go to war with China or Russia. But since we're not going to war with China or Russia anytime soon, it's an extremely expensive insurance policy that, as far as I know, has seen zero combat thus far despite plenty of opportunity. It's a beautiful piece of machinery, but we probably didn't ultimately need it in the inventory.

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I don't understand how the f-22 isn't classified as a strike craft. Does it not carry surface to ground weaponry? I had thought that one of it's theoretical roles was as a strike craft in areas with enemy radar cover.

:edit: In looking up it's original design program strike craft was one of it's sub roles. I can see how it wouldn't have done much of that by now though. It hasn't done much of anything except suffocate people.

It wasn't designed as such, and its air-to-ground ordinance payload maximum is pathetic. It also needs somebody on the ground or another aircraft doing laser designation if it's dropping laser-guided munitions.

It was designed as a pure air superiority fighter, and we'll need those if we go to war with China or Russia. But since we're not going to war with China or Russia anytime soon, it's an extremely expensive insurance policy that, as far as I know, has seen zero combat thus far despite plenty of opportunity. It's a beautiful piece of machinery, but we probably didn't ultimately need it in the inventory.

Doesn't the F-22 also have a "super computer" on board, that you can theoretically slave drones into a formation around the plane?

Or, am I thinking of the F-35?

 Peregrine wrote:
Except your entire point ignores the fact that the modern role for drones can't exist in a war between equals. We have problems with collateral damage because you have drone pilots "playing god" with the ability to sit above the battlefield beyond and decide who lives or dies. The problem isn't the fact that they aren't getting shot at directly, it's that we've given them a "point and click" weapon that makes killing easy, but failed to give proper oversight to make sure that every target is a legitimate one.

Could you explain the oversight mechanisms in place for UAV strikes, please? I'm honestly curious, and you seem to know exactly what they are.

Incidentally, how is the situation you described any different from standard air power? A guy in a Super Hornet at 18,000 feet is also just pointing and clicking, essentially, since we haven't seen a serious challenge to our air superiority since the Vietnam War ended.

 Seaward wrote:
Could you explain the oversight mechanisms in place for UAV strikes, please? I'm honestly curious, and you seem to know exactly what they are.

I'm not 100% sure, I don't remember where to find the latest information I saw on the subject. If I remember right the drone operators pick the targets, but they have to be approved by the next step up the chain of command? IIRC the problem was less "we don't have formal oversight" and more "our oversight is a rubber stamp and we don't overrule enough targets". The article described an incident where the drone operator thought it was a valid target, his superior agreed out of (apparent) eagerness to believe they had a good target, and it turned out to be a complete mistake where innocent people died. Once they got the initial idea that it was a bad guy there really wasn't much effort to confirm whether that initial assumption was correct.

Incidentally, how is the situation you described any different from standard air power? A guy in a Super Hornet at 18,000 feet is also just pointing and clicking, essentially, since we haven't seen a serious challenge to our air superiority since the Vietnam War ended.

1) Because the conventional aircraft don't have the extended endurance of a drone. A Hornet airstrike has to be planned in advance against a designated target, you can't just have it circle the battlefield for days at a time until a target of opportunity shows up and/or you get bored enough to drop a hellfire missile on a "terrorist" just to see the pretty fireworks.

2) Because the Hornet pilot isn't calling his own targets, while the drone operators do. A fighter pilot 18,000' above the battlefield is probably acting on information provided by someone on the ground with a good view of the situation, while a drone pilot is using grainy video from the drone to decide who lives and who dies, making them a lot more vulnerable to mistakes.

2) There's apparently a psychological factor involved where the pilot of the Hornet is still close enough to the action to intuitively see it as a battle, where the drone pilot is just clicking pictures on a computer screen and has a harder time intuitively seeing the targets as actual human beings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
It was designed as a pure air superiority fighter, and we'll need those if we go to war with China or Russia. But since we're not going to war with China or Russia anytime soon, it's an extremely expensive insurance policy that, as far as I know, has seen zero combat thus far despite plenty of opportunity. It's a beautiful piece of machinery, but we probably didn't ultimately need it in the inventory.

To be fair, the F-22 also demonstrates a simple rule about modern weapons: you don't get them overnight. If you want to have a modern fighter 20 years from now (and who knows what the political situation might be) you'd better start working on it today, not when you finally realize that you need it.

Besides, if anything the F-35 is the one that needs to be cut. Thanks to the idiocy of how we bought them the unit cost is now up to F-22 levels for a plane that can't do the F-22's air superiority job, can't do the precision strike role of a proper stealth aircraft (F-22 or B-2), and can't do the conventional bombing role of a much cheaper B-52 style bomb truck. At this point just cancel the entire project and buy more F-22s.

 Peregrine wrote:
1) Because the conventional aircraft don't have the extended endurance of a drone. A Hornet airstrike has to be planned in advance against a designated target, you can't just have it circle the battlefield for days at a time until a target of opportunity shows up and/or you get bored enough to drop a hellfire missile on a "terrorist" just to see the pretty fireworks.

That's largely untrue. Manned aircraft don't have the loiter capabilities of drones, that's correct, but it's not like they have none at all. A hell of a lot of air support during the recent conflicts - the majority I'd argue, in fact, without knowing numbers offhand - has been provided by patrolling aircraft called in ad hoc to hit something that crops up on the ground.

2) Because the Hornet pilot isn't calling his own targets, while the drone operators do. A fighter pilot 18,000' above the battlefield is probably acting on information provided by someone on the ground with a good view of the situation, while a drone pilot is using grainy video from the drone to decide who lives and who dies, making them a lot more vulnerable to mistakes.

I'm not sure that a twenty-six year-old FAC or ANGLICO Marine on the ground is necessarily more or less better at picking targets wisely than a twenty-six year-old UAV pilot.

2) There's apparently a psychological factor involved where the pilot of the Hornet is still close enough to the action to intuitively see it as a battle, where the drone pilot is just clicking pictures on a computer screen and has a harder time intuitively seeing the targets as actual human beings.

I'd need to see a study of some sort on this before I truly bought it. Hell, get four hundred feet off the runway in a commercial airliner and the world below's already taken on a curiously remote quality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Besides, if anything the F-35 is the one that needs to be cut. Thanks to the idiocy of how we bought them the unit cost is now up to F-22 levels for a plane that can't do the F-22's air superiority job, can't do the precision strike role of a proper stealth aircraft (F-22 or B-2), and can't do the conventional bombing role of a much cheaper B-52 style bomb truck. At this point just cancel the entire project and buy more F-22s.

Ah, yes, but naval aviation is the first responder of the military air power world.

 Seaward wrote:
That's largely untrue. Manned aircraft don't have the loiter capabilities of drones, that's correct, but it's not like they have none at all. A hell of a lot of air support during the recent conflicts - the majority I'd argue, in fact, without knowing numbers offhand - has been provided by patrolling aircraft called in ad hoc to hit something that crops up on the ground.

Yeah, but there you're responding to something happening on the ground with a specific idea of what you want to go after. That's entirely different from parking a drone 24/7 over another country and just waiting to see if anything hellfire-worthy shows up.

I'm not sure that a twenty-six year-old FAC or ANGLICO Marine on the ground is necessarily more or less better at picking targets wisely than a twenty-six year-old UAV pilot.

It's not a question of experience, it's a question of information availability. The guy on the ground has a better view of the situation, and probably has evidence like "they just shot at us", where the drone operator has a video feed of questionable quality and evidence like "it looks like a group of young men and some have guns". Unless I'm missing something I don't think our troops on the ground are allowed to call in airstrikes on the mere suspicion that somebody might be a terrorist.

I'd need to see a study of some sort on this before I truly bought it. Hell, get four hundred feet off the runway in a commercial airliner and the world below's already taken on a curiously remote quality.

I think it has to do with the fighter pilot having a better sense of "being there", while the drone operator is much more detached from the whole thing. I won't dispute that the pilot probably doesn't have the same sense of "being there" that the troops on the ground have, but there's a good reason why we don't give our pilots a full load of bombs, assign them a country, and tell them "go have fun".

(Granted, I've only flown civilian aircraft, not military ones, but there's a distinct difference between flying a real plane and flying a simulator on a computer screen, and I really doubt saying "this is controlling a real drone" would change that intuitive feeling.)

Well, according to popular mechanics, wars fought 20+ years from now the majority of the aerial vehicles will be drones of some sort or another. The reason for this being the limitations of human airmen. There is only a certain amount of G a human body can sustain and still function. A drone doesn't really have this problem. Also, a drone can have multiple pilots, meaning that the only limitation to airtime is fuel, in addition, they don't need to have the extra bulk that the equipment that keeps humans alive at high altitude adds to modern warplanes. All of these factors mean that as long as the jamming/hacking thing can be solved, drone will likely be the airforce within 50 years if not earlier.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Well, according to popular mechanics, wars fought 20+ years from now the majority of the aerial vehicles will be drones of some sort or another. The reason for this being the limitations of human airmen. There is only a certain amount of G a human body can sustain and still function. A drone doesn't really have this problem. Also, a drone can have multiple pilots, meaning that the only limitation to airtime is fuel, in addition, they don't need to have the extra bulk that the equipment that keeps humans alive at high altitude adds to modern warplanes. All of these factors mean that as long as the jamming/hacking thing can be solved, drone will likely be the airforce within 50 years if not earlier.

I can guarantee you that "hacking/jamming" prevention will never be solved, thus manned planes will always have a place.

I can guarantee you that "hacking/jamming" prevention will never be solved, thus manned planes will always have a place.

Actually it likely will be solved, at least the hacking part. The jamming thing maybe not so much, or the solution isn't as apparent, but it is most definately doable. Plus, with all of the benefits that a Drone airforce has over a human one you could definately see the military pouring immense amounts of money into the issue.

 whembly wrote:
I can guarantee you that "hacking/jamming" prevention will never be solved, thus manned planes will always have a place.

Sure it will, you just need to get the AI technology to the point that you can trust it to fly the entire mission without human intervention. No communications link = no hacking/jamming problem. In fact in a real war between equals it would happen even faster, since you no longer have to worry about pesky details like collateral damage and can focus on "kill anything within 50 miles of point X that looks like a tank".

 Ratbarf wrote:

I can guarantee you that "hacking/jamming" prevention will never be solved, thus manned planes will always have a place.

Actually it likely will be solved, at least the hacking part. The jamming thing maybe not so much, or the solution isn't as apparent, but it is most definately doable. Plus, with all of the benefits that a Drone airforce has over a human one you could definately see the military pouring immense amounts of money into the issue.

Right... the only way you can ensure that these drones cannot be hacked or jammed is to pre-program them so that they can complete their mission offline.

Now, that may be okay for the "spy" variants... but, the armed ones? No way dude

Therefore, there will ALWAYS be a place for actual piloted planes.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I can guarantee you that "hacking/jamming" prevention will never be solved, thus manned planes will always have a place.

Sure it will, you just need to get the AI technology to the point that you can trust it to fly the entire mission without human intervention. No communications link = no hacking/jamming problem. In fact in a real war between equals it would happen even faster, since you no longer have to worry about pesky details like collateral damage and can focus on "kill anything within 50 miles of point X that looks like a tank".

ninja'ed.

There's a peice somewhere about the DoD considering this (on the armed variants) and they're not too keen on it.

Right... the only way you can ensure that these drones cannot be hacked or jammed is to pre-program them so that they can complete their mission offline.

Now, that may be okay for the "spy" variants... but, the armed ones? No way dude

Therefore, there will ALWAYS be a place for actual piloted planes.

Nope, there are several theories in the works already as to create security algorithms that would take to infinity to solve.

The jamming thing is another problem, but where there's a will there's a way. Just because you don't believe that science can't do it does not mean that it is impossible. In fact until proven otherwise it should be assumed that everything and anything is possible with sufficently advanced technology, and to think otherwise is to ignore the pattern of human invention for the past 10 thousand years.

 whembly wrote:
Right... the only way you can ensure that these drones cannot be hacked or jammed is to pre-program them so that they can complete their mission offline.

Actually the hacking problem is a trivial one, you use enough encryption for the control signals that breaking it takes longer than the length of the drone's mission. All you're left with then is jamming, and even then all you can really do is force the drone to go into "lost contact" mode and return to base without finishing the mission.

(Note that the story a while back about "hacking" a drone involved getting into the unencrypted video feed the drone was broadcasting, not the actual control system.)

Therefore, there will ALWAYS be a place for actual piloted planes.

Until you have an enemy that is willing to risk the collateral damage of letting armed drones off the leash, at which point all of your manned aircraft become little more than target drones that add to your casualty list.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I can guarantee you that "hacking/jamming" prevention will never be solved, thus manned planes will always have a place.

Sure it will, you just need to get the AI technology to the point that you can trust it to fly the entire mission without human intervention. No communications link = no hacking/jamming problem. In fact in a real war between equals it would happen even faster, since you no longer have to worry about pesky details like collateral damage and can focus on "kill anything within 50 miles of point X that looks like a tank".

Then the wwar against the ironmen begins muahahah!

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I don't understand how the f-22 isn't classified as a strike craft. Does it not carry surface to ground weaponry? I had thought that one of it's theoretical roles was as a strike craft in areas with enemy radar cover.

:edit: In looking up it's original design program strike craft was one of it's sub roles. I can see how it wouldn't have done much of that by now though. It hasn't done much of anything except suffocate people.

It wasn't designed as such, and its air-to-ground ordinance payload maximum is pathetic. It also needs somebody on the ground or another aircraft doing laser designation if it's dropping laser-guided munitions.

It was designed as a pure air superiority fighter, and we'll need those if we go to war with China or Russia. But since we're not going to war with China or Russia anytime soon, it's an extremely expensive insurance policy that, as far as I know, has seen zero combat thus far despite plenty of opportunity. It's a beautiful piece of machinery, but we probably didn't ultimately need it in the inventory.

By my research it seems like it's supposed to be able to function in a ground support role, it's one of the reasons why they had a separate version for the marines. Ground support is a stressed, if secondary, feature that it's touted as having by the DoD and lockheed martin. It's also supposed to be able to fly in the rain, but I don't think they're letting it do that either. I think it was designed for everything possible and just ended up not being good at ground support to the point where we just use F18s instead since it's cheaper, but it's in there as something it's supposed to be able to do.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I don't understand how the f-22 isn't classified as a strike craft. Does it not carry surface to ground weaponry? I had thought that one of it's theoretical roles was as a strike craft in areas with enemy radar cover.

:edit: In looking up it's original design program strike craft was one of it's sub roles. I can see how it wouldn't have done much of that by now though. It hasn't done much of anything except suffocate people.

It wasn't designed as such, and its air-to-ground ordinance payload maximum is pathetic. It also needs somebody on the ground or another aircraft doing laser designation if it's dropping laser-guided munitions.

It was designed as a pure air superiority fighter, and we'll need those if we go to war with China or Russia. But since we're not going to war with China or Russia anytime soon, it's an extremely expensive insurance policy that, as far as I know, has seen zero combat thus far despite plenty of opportunity. It's a beautiful piece of machinery, but we probably didn't ultimately need it in the inventory.

By my research it seems like it's supposed to be able to function in a ground support role, it's one of the reasons why they had a separate version for the marines. Ground support is a stressed, if secondary, feature that it's touted as having by the DoD and lockheed martin. It's also supposed to be able to fly in the rain, but I don't think they're letting it do that either. I think it was designed for everything possible and just ended up not being good at ground support to the point where we just use F18s instead since it's cheaper, but it's in there as something it's supposed to be able to do.

As far as I know the Marine Corps was NEVER slated for the F-22. If it can't go on a carrier (and more specifically an LHD) then we don't want it. The F-35B's been our baby and is going active next year with successful sea trials, and plenty of flight trials and weapons trials under it's belt. It also hasn't to my knowledge caused any naval aviators to pass out...



from what I'm lead to understand from a tedious brief I had to sit through before I got out, the F-35B is a 5th Gen Multirole combatant to slot in on the Marine Corps CAS/Air Superiority role and has performed well in trials for both. Again and most important to the Corps, they can go with us, replacing our /very/ old Harrier II airframes.



I'm also lead to understand that the 35 will be replacing the F-18 and the EA-6B Prowler. That's gonna save money and training as one unified platform in all roles can't help but save costs on parts acquisitions and allows the closing of two of the airframe specific specialty school trees in favor of a single unified program. Also increases Corps capabilities cause we can bring a EW/ECM bird with us on a MEU float for support instead of having to call a carrier group if they happen to be nearby for prowlers.

Peregrine wrote:

Huh. Well, I congratulate you on holding yourself to a higher standard. I just wish I could be confident that all of the other people flying those drones have the same standards.

What you are seeing is not a failure of oversight, but an explosive expansion in the field. When we invaded Afganistan there were 48 UAVs spread across the Army,Navy/Marines, and Airforce. Nearly all of those assets would be considered national or at the lowest corps assets. Now there are something like 1500 from the national level to platoon level. You can't expand like that and realistically expect the standards to remain the same.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Reaper and predator drones would be close to useless against any up to date military. They're slow, they don't possess stealth technologies, they're not particularly resilient, and they don't carry weapons that can kill before being within range of most up to date anti air weapons. Fighting a technologically capable enemy sort of invalidates the kind of warfare those drones are useful for in the first place. The sentinel is built with actual anti state capabilities in mind.

Bwah ah ha ah ha ahahaha. Do you know what the radar cross section of a Predator is? How about an F-16, F-18, etc. You clearly have no idea what type of warfare drones are good for, or how capable they are in the modern battlefield. More of you sourcing your ass.

Peregrine wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Could you explain the oversight mechanisms in place for UAV strikes, please? I'm honestly curious, and you seem to know exactly what they are.

I'm not 100% sure, I don't remember where to find the latest information I saw on the subject. If I remember right the drone operators pick the targets, but they have to be approved by the next step up the chain of command? IIRC the problem was less "we don't have formal oversight" and more "our oversight is a rubber stamp and we don't overrule enough targets". The article described an incident where the drone operator thought it was a valid target, his superior agreed out of (apparent) eagerness to believe they had a good target, and it turned out to be a complete mistake where innocent people died. Once they got the initial idea that it was a bad guy there really wasn't much effort to confirm whether that initial assumption was correct.

Unless something has vastly changed since I left, and I have little doubt they have not, this is not even close to correct. Manned and unmanned assets require authorization from the same source, not in their chain of command, if you are saying drones lack oversight then manned CAS lack oversight as well. The only things that allow unilateral decisions on the part of the pilots are troops in contact and ROE in defense of friendly troops or self, which are basically the same thing.

Incidentally, how is the situation you described any different from standard air power? A guy in a Super Hornet at 18,000 feet is also just pointing and clicking, essentially, since we haven't seen a serious challenge to our air superiority since the Vietnam War ended.

1) Because the conventional aircraft don't have the extended endurance of a drone. A Hornet airstrike has to be planned in advance against a designated target, you can't just have it circle the battlefield for days at a time until a target of opportunity shows up and/or you get bored enough to drop a hellfire missile on a "terrorist" just to see the pretty fireworks.

2) Because the Hornet pilot isn't calling his own targets, while the drone operators do. A fighter pilot 18,000' above the battlefield is probably acting on information provided by someone on the ground with a good view of the situation, while a drone pilot is using grainy video from the drone to decide who lives and who dies, making them a lot more vulnerable to mistakes.


2) There's apparently a psychological factor involved where the pilot of the Hornet is still close enough to the action to intuitively see it as a battle, where the drone pilot is just clicking pictures on a computer screen and has a harder time intuitively seeing the targets as actual human beings.

 AustonT wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


I'm also lead to understand that the 35 will be replacing the F-18 and the EA-6B Prowler. That's gonna save money and training as one unified platform in all roles can't help but save costs on parts acquisitions and allows the closing of two of the airframe specific specialty school trees in favor of a single unified program. Also increases Corps capabilities cause we can bring a EW/ECM bird with us on a MEU float for support instead of having to call a carrier group if they happen to be nearby for prowlers.

The EA-6 was replaced relatively recently by the EA-18. I have little doubt that no replacement for the EA 18 is in the works. If you think your Harriers are old you should ask around about the last guys that Flew Prowler or Sea Viking...or th guys flying the C-3s. I'm fairly sure the F-35 will eventually replace all 18's, but hopefully by the end of thier service life the EA18s will be replaced by a dedicated platform or a modification of the medium range naval bomber the navy desperately needs.

Just what I heard, personally I like the idea of full airframe integration like that, that said a medium range bomber sounds delicious. If you want to talk old aircraft I'm a C-130/C-12 crew chief by trade and I cross trained as a Huey mech (I was attached to the H&HS Squadron out of MCAS Yuma which flies C-12s and Hueys if you desperately want to fact check me) of our HH-1N Hueys (Yes H) most of our airframe data plates are Vietnam era. Sea Knights would also be a good pick for some old as hell airframes. There's I believe at least one fourth generation Sea Knight pilot out there.

 AustonT wrote:
What you are seeing is not a failure of oversight, but an explosive expansion in the field. When we invaded Afganistan there were 48 UAVs spread across the Army,Navy/Marines, and Airforce. Nearly all of those assets would be considered national or at the lowest corps assets. Now there are something like 1500 from the national level to platoon level. You can't expand like that and realistically expect the standards to remain the same.

Total drones, or armed drones?

And I can understand the expansion factor, but if expanding the drone force means accepting more civilian deaths because the qualified operators are stretched too thin, well, that means it's time to limit the number of armed drones until more training can be done.

Unless something has vastly changed since I left, and I have little doubt they have not, this is not even close to correct. Manned and unmanned assets require authorization from the same source, not in their chain of command, if you are saying drones lack oversight then manned CAS lack oversight as well. The only things that allow unilateral decisions on the part of the pilots are troops in contact and ROE in defense of friendly troops or self, which are basically the same thing.

Ok, found the article. Like I thought, the problem was not the technical presence of oversight, but a failure to question the initial assumptions made by the drone operators, and a belief that studying a target through a drone camera is enough, even when no ground forces are in contact with the target to confirm its identity.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghanistan-drone-20110410,0,2818134,full.story

End result: oops, we just killed a bunch of civilians, sorry about that. Or there's the CIA's version of how to do it, where all you have to do is look suspicious enough or have the misfortune of being nearby when it's time to kill a "terrorist".

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11/cia-drones-marked-for-death/


Though, I should clarify that my objection is more about the use of drones as an assassination tool (such as by the CIA) and less about the use of drones in a battlefield role supporting ground troops against targets we're very confident are enemies and shooting back.

Why would I fact check you?

I was in country when the last combat EA-6 flight happened. I've always been an A-6 fanboi and I'm very critical of the current navy procurement scheme (as if it matters). Air frame integration SOUNDS great until you do it. The Navy has worshiped at the altar of parts commonality for too long. It has cost them(us) a true naval air superiority fighter, a medium bomber, carrier based tankers, fixed wing carrier asw, and a severe curtailment of the range and capacity to put munitions on target. The F-18 was never intended to be the front line fighter of the Navy, and yet here it is. Virtually alone on the deck next to an aging fleet of support aircraft. How long before some good idea fairy decides the F18 can take the E3s role? Or perhaps the C/F-18 will perform replenishment operations? It's gone too far.

 Peregrine wrote:

Though, I should clarify that my objection is more about the use of drones as an assassination tool (such as by the CIA)...

Would you prefer an explosive cigar? Or, perhaps an attack helicopter? Granted the latter was Israeli.

 dogma wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Though, I should clarify that my objection is more about the use of drones as an assassination tool (such as by the CIA)...

Would you prefer an explosive cigar? Or, perhaps an attack helicopter? Granted the latter was Israeli.

Yeah, I actually would. If the CIA had to use explosive cigars or attack helicopters they'd actually have to think carefully about their targets instead of just deciding that any sufficiently large group of "military age males" is a terrorist camp and blowing it up.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
What you are seeing is not a failure of oversight, but an explosive expansion in the field. When we invaded Afganistan there were 48 UAVs spread across the Army,Navy/Marines, and Airforce. Nearly all of those assets would be considered national or at the lowest corps assets. Now there are something like 1500 from the national level to platoon level. You can't expand like that and realistically expect the standards to remain the same.

Total drones, or armed drones?

And I can understand the expansion factor, but if expanding the drone force means accepting more civilian deaths because the qualified operators are stretched too thin, well, that means it's time to limit the number of armed drones until more training can be done.

Total drones. I couldn't tell you without spending more time than I'd care to how many of them are armed, lets just say a lot more than 40. Reaper wasn't in service, Hunter wasn't armed, Predator was like one or two squadrons.

Unless something has vastly changed since I left, and I have little doubt they have not, this is not even close to correct. Manned and unmanned assets require authorization from the same source, not in their chain of command, if you are saying drones lack oversight then manned CAS lack oversight as well. The only things that allow unilateral decisions on the part of the pilots are troops in contact and ROE in defense of friendly troops or self, which are basically the same thing.

Ok, found the article. Like I thought, the problem was not the technical presence of oversight, but a failure to question the initial assumptions made by the drone operators, and a belief that studying a target through a drone camera is enough, even when no ground forces are in contact with the target to confirm its identity.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghanistan-drone-20110410,0,2818134,full.story

End result: oops, we just killed a bunch of civilians, sorry about that. Or there's the CIA's version of how to do it, where all you have to do is look suspicious enough or have the misfortune of being nearby when it's time to kill a "terrorist".

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11/cia-drones-marked-for-death/


Though, I should clarify that my objection is more about the use of drones as an assassination tool (such as by the CIA) and less about the use of drones in a battlefield role supporting ground troops against targets we're very confident are enemies and shooting back.

I wrote more and deleted it thinking it was too much but I see now I should not have. I scanned the article and found what I was looking for. I'll won't post the relevant parts unless you want me to, I'm deliberately trying not to be insulting but this article doesn't really say what you think it does, and not what the writer wants it to.

A drone cannot make independent confirmation, the use of the word possible is almost always attached to any report. Even things we KNOW. In our world certain words carry more meaning than others: possible, probable, and confirmed being what we are talking about. I can count on one hand the number of times I submitted or allowed a member of a team I commanded to transmit a report with the word "confirmed." Another asset MUST confirm aerial intelligence, that occurs in the linked article. The other problem with the linked article and your point about drone oversight is the part where the drone never fires, nor does it make the unilateral decision to engage. A ground unit confirmed weapons that the air unit classed possible and a joint command cleared Army and Air Force teams to engage. That's hardly a lock of oversight, and the failure is not on the part of the drones but on the ground forces for failing to perform thier end of manned unmanned taming. If they weren't visula they shouldn't have confirmed, but they did. If you'd like I can pull the pertinent parts of the article for you.

The CIA is a whole different kettle of fish.

 AustonT wrote:
Why would I fact check you?

I was in country when the last combat EA-6 flight happened. I've always been an A-6 fanboi and I'm very critical of the current navy procurement scheme (as if it matters). Air frame integration SOUNDS great until you do it. The Navy has worshiped at the altar of parts commonality for too long. It has cost them(us) a true naval air superiority fighter, a medium bomber, carrier based tankers, fixed wing carrier asw, and a severe curtailment of the range and capacity to put munitions on target. The F-18 was never intended to be the front line fighter of the Navy, and yet here it is. Virtually alone on the deck next to an aging fleet of support aircraft. How long before some good idea fairy decides the F18 can take the E3s role? Or perhaps the C/F-18 will perform replenishment operations? It's gone too far.

People seem to be obsessed with it around here.

You make a fair point though as much as I like the Hornet the shelf is mighty bare right now for Naval Air Operations.

Meh, I'm an obsessive fact checker but checking someone life experience, you know unless we are talking credentials. I could not care less. You know a SSG Kilgore? mayyyyybe GySG. He'd be a QA if your did.

What may I ask do you like about the Hornet, and I'll be honest I'm asking because I pretty much love to point out how its inferior in nearly every way to the aircraft it has replaced.

 AustonT wrote:
Another asset MUST confirm aerial intelligence, that occurs in the linked article.

Where exactly? The article even explicitly states that the target was out of sight of the ground forces, miles away from their location by the time the attack happened. At 7:38 they report that they can't see it, at 7:40 they "confirm" the target.

The other problem with the linked article and your point about drone oversight is the part where the drone never fires, nor does it make the unilateral decision to engage.

Ok, I'll grant that, the drone itself didn't fire before they realized the mistake (I remembered that part wrong), but it was pretty clearly the fault of the drone crew getting trigger happy. It's not too difficult to imagine a similar scenario where the drone is carrying more missiles and makes the entire attack itself.

A ground unit confirmed weapons that the air unit classed possible and a joint command cleared Army and Air Force teams to engage. That's hardly a lock of oversight, and the failure is not on the part of the drones but on the ground forces for failing to perform thier end of manned unmanned taming. If they weren't visula they shouldn't have confirmed, but they did. If you'd like I can pull the pertinent parts of the article for you.

The oversight issue is that there didn't seem to be very much skepticism about the report. On paper there might have been plenty of oversight, but was it used effectively? Why didn't anybody realize that this was a bad idea until after the missiles had been fired?

And there definitely is fault from the drones, if the drone hadn't been there (or had an operator that was less eager to kill something) would they have been so confident in their identification of the target? Or would they have been forced to get closer and have the ground troops look at it, at which point they would (hopefully) realize that it's not a threat? The military even admitted that there was fault from the drones, and took steps to try to avoid a similar situation. If there was no fault from the drones there would have been no need to do any of that.

The CIA is a whole different kettle of fish.

Is that agreement or disagreement that the CIA is a problem?

I'll won't post the relevant parts unless you want me to, I'm deliberately trying not to be insulting but this article doesn't really say what you think it does, and not what the writer wants it to.

Please do. If this issue is being reported inaccurately I'd like to know what exactly is going on.

 AustonT wrote:
Meh, I'm an obsessive fact checker but checking someone life experience, you know unless we are talking credentials. I could not care less. You know a SSG Kilgore? mayyyyybe GySG. He'd be a QA if your did.

What may I ask do you like about the Hornet, and I'll be honest I'm asking because I pretty much love to point out how its inferior in nearly every way to the aircraft it has replaced.

Hahah, Kilgore.... hmmm it's been two years so it depends when he got there. But no no one by that name in QA when I was there.

Honestly I like the lines on the Hornet. XD weak reasoning I know. It's done admirably as a "jack of all trades master of none" but it really shouldn't have to be doing that in the first place. I give the airframe credit for adaptability though no matter how much it's stretched wafer thin in it's current multirole/EVERY damn role position.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Another asset MUST confirm aerial intelligence, that occurs in the linked article.

Where exactly? The article even explicitly states that the target was out of sight of the ground forces, miles away from their location by the time the attack happened. At 7:38 they report that they can't see it, at 7:40 they "confirm" the target.

For one you have the "screeners" which are the unmanned exploitation team, IME these guys are useless gakkers but that is beside the point. Lets start from the beginning:

American aircraft began tracking the vehicles at 5 a.m.

The crew of an AC-130, a U.S. ground attack plane flying in the area, spotted a pickup and a sport utility vehicle with a roof rack converge from different directions.

At 5:08 a.m., they saw one of the drivers flash his headlights in the darkness.

The AC-130 radioed the Predator crew in Nevada: "It appears the two vehicles are flashing lights, signaling."

With that, the travelers became targets of suspicion.

The initial spot report is made by an AC-130, not a drone. The drone is there to confirm "suspicious activity" or that's how I would characterize it in my log.
The real issue here is apparent right away.

At 5:14 a.m., six minutes after the two Afghan vehicles flashed their lights, the AC-130 crew asked the A-team what it wanted to do about the suspicious vehicles.

"Roger, ground force commander's intent is to destroy the vehicles and the personnel," came the unit's reply.

Lets shelve that for now, but this has nothing to do with drone oversight, or them circling the battlefield lie gods deserving who lives and who dies. Which I believe is a near verbatim quote.
The drone comes on target

At 5:15 a.m., the Predator pilot thought he saw a rifle inside one of the vehicles.

"See if you can zoom in on that guy," he told the camera operator. "Is that a …rifle?"

"Maybe just a warm spot from where he was sitting," the camera operator replied, referring to an image picked up by the infrared camera. "Can't really tell right now, but it does look like an object."

"I was hoping we could make a rifle out," the pilot said. "Never mind."

This mirrors discussions and outright arguments I have had hundreds of times. and it's the reason drones don't do independent confirmation. A gun and a cane look a lot alike. The pilot is overzealous, the MPO is cautious. The report the give however is accurate, the author tries to make it more dramatic than it is; regardless of how the drone operators feel they must report factually. If I see Snow white and the seven dwarves its: 7 pax 1 poss AF, 7 poss JM no uniform. poss whistling while they work. moving E.

A few minutes later, the pilot appeared to downplay the screeners' observation, alerting the special operations unit to "a possible rifle and two possible children near the SUV."

An accurate assessment.

"Bring them in as close as we can until we also have [attack aircraft] up," the unit's radio operator said. "We want to take out the whole lot of them."

You see how the issue isn't the drone?

The Predator video was not the only intelligence that morning suggesting that U.S. forces were in danger.

"We're receiving ICOM traffic," or intercepted communications, the A-Team radioed the Predator crew. "We believe we may have a high-level Taliban commander."

This is an independent source confirming suspicious activity, that's three sources: AC-130, MQ-1, and an intercepts unit with no DF (according to the article). AT NO POINT does the drone section positively identify weapons or even upgrade their observation to probable.

At 7:40 a.m., the A-Team radioed that its captain had concluded that he had established "positive identification" based on "the weapons we've identified and the demographics of the individuals plus the ICOM."

"the weapons we've identified" not you we. To me that indicates the ground force identified the weapons themselves, clearly that wasn't the case. Is that somehow the drone operators fault? No. That's the guy on the ground.
The guy who concluded that he was going to attack the vehicles 3 hours ago before the drone even entered the equation.

The other problem with the linked article and your point about drone oversight is the part where the drone never fires, nor does it make the unilateral decision to engage.

Ok, I'll grant that, the drone itself didn't fire before they realized the mistake (I remembered that part wrong), but it was pretty clearly the fault of the drone crew getting trigger happy. It's not too difficult to imagine a similar scenario where the drone is carrying more missiles and makes the entire attack itself.

Really? The drone crew was trigger happy? As I pointed out above the guy on the ground wanted to kill those vehicles before the drone came into the picture, The Kiowas, who are themselves manned reconnaissance pilots do the shooting and never bother to do a target check with their ball? Of all the people involved the drone guys have the least to answer for; they observed and reported; which is their job.

A ground unit confirmed weapons that the air unit classed possible and a joint command cleared Army and Air Force teams to engage. That's hardly a lock of oversight, and the failure is not on the part of the drones but on the ground forces for failing to perform thier end of manned unmanned taming. If they weren't visula they shouldn't have confirmed, but they did. If you'd like I can pull the pertinent parts of the article for you.

The oversight issue is that there didn't seem to be very much skepticism about the report. On paper there might have been plenty of oversight, but was it used effectively? Why didn't anybody realize that this was a bad idea until after the missiles had been fired?

If anything what you are saying here is that the guy on the ground suffers from a lack of oversight, again we are talking about drones; you made the point several times that drones lack oversight and your example is a drone that doesn't shoot and doesn't make the decision to shoot while you gloss over the manned assets doing the shooting and the guy on the ground. This article addresses literally nothing about oversight on drones and has a lot to do with armchair generaling a guy on the ground with the benefit of hindsight.

And there definitely is fault from the drones, if the drone hadn't been there (or had an operator that was less eager to kill something) would they have been so confident in their identification of the target? Or would they have been forced to get closer and have the ground troops look at it, at which point they would (hopefully) realize that it's not a threat? The military even admitted that there was fault from the drones, and took steps to try to avoid a similar situation. If there was no fault from the drones there would have been no need to do any of that.

Theres nothing in this article that supports this, if it wasn't the drone it would have been the AC-130; they reported what they saw as accurately as they could. What they said in between to each other had no effect on the ground commander, who made it quite clear what his intentions were before the drone was involved.

The CIA is a whole different kettle of fish.

Is that agreement or disagreement that the CIA is a problem?

The CIA doesn't play by the same rulebook we do.

I'll won't post the relevant parts unless you want me to, I'm deliberately trying not to be insulting but this article doesn't really say what you think it does, and not what the writer wants it to.

Please do. If this issue is being reported inaccurately I'd like to know what exactly is going on.

Literally the day before this incident happened THIS article appeared in the same newspaper singing a vastly different tune.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-drone-crews21-2010feb21,0,5789185,full.story

Though more than 95% of their missions involve gathering intelligence or watching over troops, pilots sometimes must decide whether to open fire. They operate under the same rules as pilots of fighter jets or attack helicopters. Only after going through a long checklist of safeguards are they cleared to push a black button on the throttle and squeeze a gray trigger on the joystick to release a bomb or missile.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Meh lots of quote boxes makes response ugly, I can't get this sorted.

To be clear, I also place plenty of blame on the guy on the ground who also got trigger happy. However, I still think the drone was part of the problem, for this reason:

"I was hoping we could make a rifle out," the pilot said. "Never mind."

"Sounds like they need more than a possible," the camera operator told the pilot. Seeing the Afghan men jammed into the flat bed of the pickup, he added, "That truck would make a beautiful target."

"Why didn't he say 'possible' child?" the pilot said. "Why are they so quick to call kids but not to call a rifle."

The Army said evidence that the convoy was not a hostile force was "ignored or downplayed by the Predator crew,"


To me it seems pretty clear that the drone operators wanted it to be a real target, so they (consciously or unconsciously) saw only the evidence that confirmed their assumption. Instead of "let's find out what's going on", they went in with a plan of "get the justification we need to launch the attack". And that is a dangerously irresponsible way of handling things when you've invented the ability to deploy point and click hellfire missiles anywhere you want with no risk.

Now, I'd be happy to hear that this is the exception to the rule with military drones, but is really that unbelievable that this kind of attitude could be popular in the CIA's drone program? We've certainly seen them using a rather loose definition of "legitimate target" and "acceptable collateral damage".

 AustonT wrote:
What may I ask do you like about the Hornet, and I'll be honest I'm asking because I pretty much love to point out how its inferior in nearly every way to the aircraft it has replaced.

Except for the one that matters...maintenance!

 Peregrine wrote:

Yeah, I actually would. If the CIA had to use explosive cigars or attack helicopters they'd actually have to think carefully about their targets instead of just deciding that any sufficiently large group of "military age males" is a terrorist camp and blowing it up.

Well, to be fair, to my knowledge the CIA doesn't have much direct control over drone activity. Even in Yassin's case it was a matter of existing intelligence being fed to multiple arms of the IDF. Intelligence fed to them by the Mossad, who have no qualms about killing people and blowing things up in a notably public manner.

Intelligence agencies generally establish where targets are, and occasionally orchestrate operation to attack particular ones, but they don't directly send in drone strikes because there is a large cluster of possible insurgents. That tends to be a matter of the drone operator's interpretation of his orders which, in the the case of Afghanistan/Pakistan, tend to be based on highly generalized information.

Bwah ah ha ah ha ahahaha. Do you know what the radar cross section of a Predator is? How about an F-16, F-18, etc. You clearly have no idea what type of warfare drones are good for, or how capable they are in the modern battlefield. More of you sourcing your ass.

A big one considering it's a giant ass slow moving prop plane. Are you a radio telemetry physicist now? Materials expert? Is big 'ol Auston T sitting on a weapons tech think tank these days? Boy you seem to have a lot of jobs beyond sitting in a chair. Good on ya.

Maybe it has to do with you making up whatever sounds good to you and then stamping your feet when people disagree, pretty much like every other thread you are in except in this case when you do it it's glaringly obvious to me and from the looks of it others as well.

Says the guy whose primary contribution to this and most other threads is two sentence complaints, free of context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kalishnakov_marine wrote:As far as I know the Marine Corps was NEVER slated for the F-22. If it can't go on a carrier (and more specifically an LHD) then we don't want it. The F-35B's been our baby and is going active next year with successful sea trials, and plenty of flight trials and weapons trials under it's belt. It also hasn't to my knowledge caused any naval aviators to pass out...

Yeah, it looks like they dropped that role when they were developing methods of production. Probably linked to the F-35. That'll teach me to read Lockheeds promises as anything more than pretty words. The thing had a hell of a development period, I'd be surprised if it wasn't considered for every role possible at one point or another.

Bored now.