Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, what do you guys think of Bush's.... ooops sorry Barak's escalating drone war? Up to something like seven countries where they're in operation, mostly controlled by the CIA - is it making US safer or no? Check out this article: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175415/tomgram%3A_barbara_ehrenreich%2C_the_fog_of_%28robot%29_war/ for more info...

On the + side people could eventually fight a bloodless war.
On the - side when the machine rise up we will hvae armed them already and the first strike will be even more ruthless than we ever expected.

purplefood wrote:On the - side people could eventually fight a bloodless war.

Let me just correct that for you.

Bloodless wars are not a good thing, the very fact that war costs human lives it what prevents us from having constant wars.

If no-one ever dies at war (only mindless mass-produced robotic drones) then why do we ever have to stop fighting wars? if we lose a robot we can just make/buy more, but if we lose a human things are a lot more complicated

In the state of perpetual war (because there is no human cost to discourage nations from going to war) , countries just shift the production and research made by our nation into creating better and better warbots, and keep going until there is no resources left on the planet. Or worse still, cause the entire of the world's technological advancement to become stagnant, as they wouldn't be interested unless it could blow up other robots better...

Leigen_Zero wrote:

purplefood wrote:On the - side people could eventually fight a bloodless war.

Let me just correct that for you.

Bloodless wars are not a good thing, the very fact that war costs human lives it what prevents us from having constant wars.

If no-one ever dies at war (only mindless mass-produced robotic drones) then why do we ever have to stop fighting wars? if we lose a robot we can just make/buy more, but if we lose a human things are a lot more complicated

In the state of perpetual war (because there is no human cost to discourage nations from going to war) , countries just shift the production and research made by our nation into creating better and better warbots, and keep going until there is no resources left on the planet. Or worse still, cause the entire of the world's technological advancement to become stagnant, as they wouldn't be interested unless it could blow up other robots better...

+1 to that,

Wasn't there a philosopher somewhere who said "It is good war is so terrible or we should grow too fond of it."

If human suffering really stopped nations going to war, we would have become peace-loving hippies millenia ago.

Emperors Faithful wrote:If human suffering really stopped nations going to war, we would have become peace-loving hippies millenia ago.

+1 to that. if anything humans love to kill each other.

What these drone strikes do achieve however, is remove the impact and risk for the owning-nation as well as going some way to make it appear that the owning-nations hands are bloodless, and I guess generally deadens the public to it. Things that would have shocked people before seem perfectly normal now. I couldn't believe it when I saw that 45 civilians, including women and children, had been killed in one attack. It appeared along the scroll at the bottom. Now imagine the news if Coalition troops had walked in there and killed those people?

"Whoops, drone accidentally blew up a wedding procession and a maternity ward? It's okay, it's not like 'Nam or anything."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lord commissar klimino wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:If human suffering really stopped nations going to war, we would have become peace-loving hippies millenia ago.

+1 to that. if anything humans love to kill each other.

And that's just as silly as what they're saying.

Certainly turning conflict into a push button affair separates one side (terrorists aren't using a lot of drones) from some of the horrors and there is certainly concern that it creates an even higher level of cognitive dissonance, such as EF pointed out. At its most basic war is a blood sacrifice (I am willing to die for X cause/goals) and when you remove the blood it can be a bit tricky, ethically. This isn't some new discovery though and there is quite a bit of writing going on, not just limited to military or philosophy journals, on the subject.

Leigen_Zero wrote:

purplefood wrote:On the - side people could eventually fight a bloodless war.

Let me just correct that for you.

Bloodless wars are not a good thing, the very fact that war costs human lives it what prevents us from having constant wars.

If no-one ever dies at war (only mindless mass-produced robotic drones) then why do we ever have to stop fighting wars? if we lose a robot we can just make/buy more, but if we lose a human things are a lot more complicated

In the state of perpetual war (because there is no human cost to discourage nations from going to war) , countries just shift the production and research made by our nation into creating better and better warbots, and keep going until there is no resources left on the planet. Or worse still, cause the entire of the world's technological advancement to become stagnant, as they wouldn't be interested unless it could blow up other robots better...

Sounds like a plan to me. If its bloodless for our side I am down with that.

I have to wonder whose 'side' Frazzled puts Pakistani women and children on.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I have to wonder whose 'side' Frazzled puts Pakistani women and children on.

which country do they 'belong' to?

lord commissar klimino wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I have to wonder whose 'side' Frazzled puts Pakistani women and children on.

which country do they 'belong' to?

Is this serious?

Wasn't this an episode of the original Star Trek? There were two planets at war but it was fought through simulation to preserve society and minimize damage. The computers would just determine the people killed based on probabilities and such and those marked as casualties would just walk into a death chamber to be painlessly executed.

Ahtman wrote:Wasn't this an episode of the original Star Trek? There were two planets at war but it was fought through simulation to preserve society and minimize damage. The computers would just determine the people killed based on probabilities and such and those marked as casualties would just walk into a death chamber to be painlessly executed.

Best game of Warhams 40. Evar.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I have to wonder whose 'side' Frazzled puts Pakistani women and children on.

which country do they 'belong' to?

Is this serious?

dont know if its what he thinks but its what the mind set would seem to be. think about it,we didnt care much for other wars (usually) until it was people from are country getting killed.

its all fine and dandy til one of are civilians gets killed. :shrug: i personally dont care either way. i think we should care more about civilans under any circumstance but also think in certain situations the goal out weighs the cost.

lord commissar klimino wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I have to wonder whose 'side' Frazzled puts Pakistani women and children on.

which country do they 'belong' to?

Exactly.

lord commissar klimino wrote:
dont know if its what he thinks but its what the mind set would seem to be. think about it,we didnt care much for other wars (usually) until it was people from are country getting killed.

Ah, okay. I thought your question was 'Which country are Pakistanis from?' The answer would be Pakistan, btw.

its all fine and dandy til one of are civilians gets killed. :shrug: i personally dont care either way. i think we should care more about civilans under any circumstance but also think in certain situations the goal out weighs the cost.

That's a cop-out if I ever saw one. "We should care about civilians under any cirumstances, but not in certain situations."

Emperors Faithful wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I have to wonder whose 'side' Frazzled puts Pakistani women and children on.

which country do they 'belong' to?

Is this serious?

Extremely.

Frazzled wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I have to wonder whose 'side' Frazzled puts Pakistani women and children on.

which country do they 'belong' to?

Exactly.

You're dodging the question.

Ahtman wrote:Wasn't this an episode of the original Star Trek? There were two planets at war but it was fought through simulation to preserve society and minimize damage. The computers would just determine the people killed based on probabilities and such and those marked as casualties would just walk into a death chamber to be painlessly executed.

A Little Taste of Armeggedon I think it was called.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I have to wonder whose 'side' Frazzled puts Pakistani women and children on.

which country do they 'belong' to?

Exactly.

You're dodging the question.

Other than y9ou suddenly seeing an opportunity to get your morally superior hat on, whats the question?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:
dont know if its what he thinks but its what the mind set would seem to be. think about it,we didnt care much for other wars (usually) until it was people from are country getting killed.

Ah, okay. I thought your question was 'Which country are Pakistanis from?' The answer would be Pakistan, btw.

its all fine and dandy til one of are civilians gets killed. :shrug: i personally dont care either way. i think we should care more about civilans under any circumstance but also think in certain situations the goal out weighs the cost.

That's a cop-out if I ever saw one. "We should care about civilians under any cirumstances, but not in certain situations."

ah,arguments

i said more,not any circumstance. if killing the guy/group holding the hostages will end a war or stop the future killing of hundreds,then those 20 or so civilians are worth the cost.

Frazzled wrote:
Other than y9ou suddenly seeing an opportunity to get your morally superior hat on, whats the question?

1) It is a nice hat. And I don't wear it backwards like the cool kids do.

2) The question is 'What side are Pakistani women and children on?' Let's assume that they're not Taliban sympathizers.

lord commissar klimino wrote:

ah,arguments

i said more,not any circumstance. if killing the guy/group holding the hostages will end a war or stop the future killing of hundreds,then those 20 or so civilians are worth the cost.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with that. It's more the approach of "Let's blow up a village on the off chance that there are Taliban there" that irks me.

i understand why it does. and thats what i mean. they arnt American. so its an ok loss.

not my opinion,but thats what it seems like they are going for.

lord commissar klimino wrote:i understand why it does. and thats what i mean. they arnt American. so its an ok loss.

not my opinion,but thats what it seems like they are going for.

It may be what Frazz is going for, but that isn't the opinion of most (hint: sane) people. A big part of what stopped the Vietnam war was the footage of the killing and destruction, people knew that US troops and pilots were behind a lot of this. With unmanned drones, it's a lot more removed. Essentially, a figure of dead Pakistanis rolling across the newscreen isn't as 'real' as knowing that your troops were the ones doing the killing.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:i understand why it does. and thats what i mean. they arnt American. so its an ok loss.

not my opinion,but thats what it seems like they are going for.

It may be what Frazz is going for, but that isn't the opinion of most (hint: sane) people. A big part of what stopped the Vietnam war was the footage of the killing and destruction, people knew that US troops and pilots were behind a lot of this. With unmanned drones, it's a lot more removed. Essentially, a figure of dead Pakistanis rolling across the newscreen isn't as 'real' as knowing that your troops were the ones doing the killing.

exactly. so people dont care. some (lots IMO) of thats is because there not american. if it was americans getting shot up by drone people would be throwing a much larger fit.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

2) The question is 'What side are Pakistani women and children on?' Let's assume that they're not Taliban sympathizers.

Mmm...ok. They are on their side. Everyone is on their own side. Life is existentialist baby.


-Frazzled, on Life

lord commissar klimino wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:i understand why it does. and thats what i mean. they arnt American. so its an ok loss.

not my opinion,but thats what it seems like they are going for.

It may be what Frazz is going for, but that isn't the opinion of most (hint: sane) people. A big part of what stopped the Vietnam war was the footage of the killing and destruction, people knew that US troops and pilots were behind a lot of this. With unmanned drones, it's a lot more removed. Essentially, a figure of dead Pakistanis rolling across the newscreen isn't as 'real' as knowing that your troops were the ones doing the killing.

exactly. so people dont care. some (lots IMO) of thats is because there not american. if it was americans getting shot up by drone people would be throwing a much larger fit.

Of course. 'People', meaning the Western world, would also care more if they were white, but that's just how the world is at the moment.

@Frazzled: So...the drone is on the side of the Evil Machine Empire? That fething does it, If anyone wants me I'll be outback building a bunker.

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Frazzled: So...the drone is on the side of the Evil Machine Empire? That fething does it, If anyone wants me I'll be outback building a bunker.

can i help? im not to fond of dying from everything being an enemy either (well,not fond of dieing from anything but you know what i mean.)

lord commissar klimino wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Frazzled: So...the drone is on the side of the Evil Machine Empire? That fething does it, If anyone wants me I'll be outback building a bunker.

can i help? im not to fond of dying from everything being an enemy either (well,not fond of dieing from anything but you know what i mean.)

Sure. Just remember that you're on your side, I'm on my side, the shovel is on the shovel's side and the bunker...well the bunker is actually neutral. Damn neautrals, what drives them? Lust for gold? Power? Or were they just born with a heart full of neutrality?

Emperors Faithful wrote:Sure. Just remember that you're on your side, I'm on my side, the shovel is on the shovel's side and the bunker...well the bunker is actually neutral. Damn neautrals, what drives them? Lust for gold? Power? Or were they just born with a heart full of neutrality?

quoted.