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.

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.

Drones are manned to a certain extent that there is someone flying these things from a remote station say back in the USA when they are over Afganistan so there is still the human squish thing making the decision not the machine to fire.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

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?

With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me.

Steu 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.

Drones are manned to a certain extent that there is someone flying these things from a remote station say back in the USA when they are over Afganistan so there is still the human squish thing making the decision not the machine to fire.

But the link is much more tenuous than that of a Coalition Armoured Collumn blowing up a village, or even artillery.

biccat wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

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?

With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me.

Let fly the white flag of war!

If I don't survive this, tell my wife hello.

No one's taken on my question though: does this make america safer? My gut tells me no, because the chances of killing innocents is high, and killing innocents makes more people hate you. Degrading the capabilities of the enemy is likely resulting, but is it worth it? Seems like short-term gain for long-term loss.

Border security is currently using a predator drone. I think this is awesome. Personally, I'm for remotely-controlled soldiers. Less bloodshed, more awesome military hardware. We just need to make them more precise/less explosive. Perhaps some guided missiles sans payloads? Or a small one?

Frazzled wrote:

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

How long does the bloodless war stay one-sided?

Consider the cold war and the arms race, USA got nukes, so the russians got bigger ones, so the USA got bigger ones etc etc. Once we hit a point where all armed forces operate using these remote drones, then we are screwed, because then there is no 'real' cost to war (i.e. people actually dying) we have no need to stop, surrender, we just keep building more and more robots to fight the other nations endless supply of robots.

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...

War making technology STAGNATE? If the destruction is so pervasive that human capacity for reading, writing, and recorded history are destroyed (Read: One hell of a nuclear war) then I would agree with you, it would even make it go backward.

Otherwise the argument falls on its face, because the same technologies that enable armies to move faster and farther, to destroy the enemy more effectively and in turn keep him from being destroyed by his enemy bleed over into non-military spheres readily. Off the top of my head I can name modern rocketry and aviation, modern metallurgy, understanding of trauma on the human body...I highly doubt any of these things would be nearly as developed if not the funding and necessity demanded by warfare.

It gets even simpler than this: Do you think the Romans were building all those roads across the empire out of some sense of altruism? No! We need to march hundreds of thousands of men with swords across the countryside and stab those <CENSORED!>s until they die, and we need to do it faster than they can! Then, if they manage to beat back the first army, we need a second one at the border ASAP! Get it done! Oh, and by the way...that lovely "Stone" stuff we are building the city walls out of now? Yea, I want my house made out of it.

No one's taken on my question though: does this make america safer?

Allow me: Yes. As much as any given weapon system can automatically make its owner "Safer" -Yes.-

My gut tells me no, because the chances of killing innocents is high, and killing innocents makes more people hate you.

No more so than dropping a one ton JDAM in the same place. Or shelling the place with arty/mortars. Or tanks. OR maybe send the infantry into direct conflict and have a gunfight resulting in hundreds or thousands of rounds of small arms ammo flying around in downtown DontGiveACrapiStan, population: 12 people to a house. War sucks, and it sucks for everyone regardless of whether or not you are wearing a uniform. People will die, and the WRONG people will occasionally die, this is regrettable and should be avoided...but it WILL happen. Use the methods that pose the fewest risks to the people you must keep alive (IE: Yours) and preferably the fewest risks to the people you don't really want dead.

Yes, killing innocents makes more people hate you, but this implies that the increase is at a level where it's more than academic. It's not like a foreign army has invaded and occupied their country, hijacked their entire political system (For good or bad in the view of the non-invadee is rather irrelevant) and decided they know how people should live there better than the residents do or anything.

Degrading the capabilities of the enemy is likely resulting, but is it worth it?

In this case, absolutely Yes.

Seems like short-term gain for long-term loss.

No more of a loss than when we started if you are speaking of Afghanistan and Iraq. Land wars in Asia tend to not go well, and the only time they wind up being short term affairs is when one side is being exterminated. There will be no winners there, on any side. I just <censored> sure hope the people we sent to fight there can find something to make it seem like the blood was worth it, the lack of that tore a lot of people up about 40 years ago.

micahaphone wrote:Border security is currently using a predator drone. I think this is awesome. Personally, I'm for remotely-controlled soldiers. Less bloodshed, more awesome military hardware. We just need to make them more precise/less explosive. Perhaps some guided missiles sans payloads? Or a small one?

Well we have the drones. Now we need these guys. Speaking of border security. I've got your border security right here baby.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leigen_Zero wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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

How long does the bloodless war stay one-sided?

Consider the cold war and the arms race, USA got nukes, so the russians got bigger ones, so the USA got bigger ones etc etc. Once we hit a point where all armed forces operate using these remote drones, then we are screwed, because then there is no 'real' cost to war (i.e. people actually dying) we have no need to stop, surrender, we just keep building more and more robots to fight the other nations endless supply of robots.

Considering the other side already spilled the blood your argument is moot.
But you're right to an extent, however, people for some strange reason support the concept of using drones over MIRVing a target. I guess thats probably better.
Interestingly, what would have happened had we just nuked Tora Bora when we had Bin Laden cornered in 2002?

Frazzled wrote:Interestingly, what would have happened had we just nuked Tora Bora when we had Bin Laden cornered in 2002?

Then it would have been the first time since the end of WWII that a Nuclear Bomb had been used inan engagement. Which would generally not go down well around the world, since a willingness to use Nukes so readily would make the US look crazier the Kim-North-is-Best-Korea-Jong Il.

You also probably wouldn't have a body to show for it.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Interestingly, what would have happened had we just nuked Tora Bora when we had Bin Laden cornered in 2002?

Then it would have been the first time since the end of WWII that a Nuclear Bomb had been used inan engagement. Which would generally not go down well around the world, since a willingness to use Nukes so readily would make the US look crazier the Kim-North-is-Best-Korea-Jong Il.

It is better to be feared than loved.

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Interestingly, what would have happened had we just nuked Tora Bora when we had Bin Laden cornered in 2002?

Then it would have been the first time since the end of WWII that a Nuclear Bomb had been used inan engagement. Which would generally not go down well around the world, since a willingness to use Nukes so readily would make the US look crazier the Kim-North-is-Best-Korea-Jong Il.

It is better to be feared than loved.

Sure, especially when everyone else that 'fears' you also happen to have Nukes as well.

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.

Just to put some perspective on your statement, overseas, not a heck of a lot of people would care if Americans were getting killed here. In fact, there was dancing in the streets over 9/11.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Interestingly, what would have happened had we just nuked Tora Bora when we had Bin Laden cornered in 2002?

Then it would have been the first time since the end of WWII that a Nuclear Bomb had been used inan engagement. Which would generally not go down well around the world, since a willingness to use Nukes so readily would make the US look crazier the Kim-North-is-Best-Korea-Jong Il.

It is better to be feared than loved.

Sure, especially when everyone else that 'fears' you also happen to have Nukes as well.

Fear kept us alive from 1946 - 1999 thank you very much. MAD is a wondrous thing.

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Interestingly, what would have happened had we just nuked Tora Bora when we had Bin Laden cornered in 2002?

Then it would have been the first time since the end of WWII that a Nuclear Bomb had been used inan engagement. Which would generally not go down well around the world, since a willingness to use Nukes so readily would make the US look crazier the Kim-North-is-Best-Korea-Jong Il.

It is better to be feared than loved.

Sure, especially when everyone else that 'fears' you also happen to have Nukes as well.

Fear kept us alive from 1946 - 1999 thank you very much. MAD is a wondrous thing.

Yes, but only becuase no one actually used the Nukes available at all.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Interestingly, what would have happened had we just nuked Tora Bora when we had Bin Laden cornered in 2002?

Then it would have been the first time since the end of WWII that a Nuclear Bomb had been used inan engagement. Which would generally not go down well around the world, since a willingness to use Nukes so readily would make the US look crazier the Kim-North-is-Best-Korea-Jong Il.

It is better to be feared than loved.

Sure, especially when everyone else that 'fears' you also happen to have Nukes as well.

Fear kept us alive from 1946 - 1999 thank you very much. MAD is a wondrous thing.

Yes, but only becuase no one actually used the Nukes available at all.

Derp derp, thats kind of the whole point of MAD.

Ahtman wrote:If I don't survive this, tell my wife hello.

All I know is my gut says maybe.

We done? One of my absolute favourite episodes of Futurama. Apprently not one of klimino's, as he missed the original reference. Must be remedied!

Relapse wrote:

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.

Just to put some perspective on your statement, overseas, not a heck of a lot of people would care if Americans were getting killed here. In fact, there was dancing in the streets over 9/11.

never said it was only america that was like that. just america was the country in subject. id scold and say thats horrible,but only we care and it would just make me look like a hypocrite.

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Interestingly, what would have happened had we just nuked Tora Bora when we had Bin Laden cornered in 2002?

Then it would have been the first time since the end of WWII that a Nuclear Bomb had been used inan engagement. Which would generally not go down well around the world, since a willingness to use Nukes so readily would make the US look crazier the Kim-North-is-Best-Korea-Jong Il.

It is better to be feared than loved.

Sure, especially when everyone else that 'fears' you also happen to have Nukes as well.

Fear kept us alive from 1946 - 1999 thank you very much. MAD is a wondrous thing.

Yes, but only becuase no one actually used the Nukes available at all.

Derp derp, thats kind of the whole point of MAD.

But we are talking about a theoretical instance where the US would willingly use Nukes, almost definitely without permission, on a foreign country's soil. If the US were to demonstrate a willingness to use Nukes, then so would other countries. Your only hope would be that no gives a enough of a feth about Afghanistan or what the US does there to retaliate on their behalf. It would certainly create a huge political fallout and generally, as I said, make the US come across as a complete dick. It wouldn't do so much to create fear (in a useful way that can be used to influence) becuase other countries also have the same capabilities.

I like how our community easily slips into talk of what would happen if nuclear weapons were used.

micahaphone wrote:I like how our community easily slips into talk of what would happen if nuclear weapons were used.

yes,it is a surprisingly popular subject. maybe because even though its a slightly dieing threat,its still the biggest one we've got.

micahaphone wrote:I like how our community easily slips into talk of what would happen if nuclear weapons were used.

Surely there's no correlation between liking 40K and being interested in really, really powerful weapons capable of wiping out all life on a planet?

This thread is not what I thought it was going to be about I thought that it would be more about house robots like sir killalot and sgt bash.

Nukes: Because if we can't win this war, no one can.

The sooner the USA gets more robot assassins in the sky, the better. Why rule through benevolence and the spreading of democracy if we can rule through fear? I mean, nothing bad could come of that, right?

micahaphone wrote:The sooner the USA gets more robot assassins in the sky, the better. Why rule through benevolence and the spreading of democracy if we can rule through fear? I mean, nothing bad could come of that, right?

lord commissar klimino wrote:

micahaphone wrote:The sooner the USA gets more robot assassins in the sky, the better. Why rule through benevolence and the spreading of democracy if we can rule through fear? I mean, nothing bad could come of that, right?

Not really trolling. It seems more like a joke.

coolyo294 wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:

micahaphone wrote:The sooner the USA gets more robot assassins in the sky, the better. Why rule through benevolence and the spreading of democracy if we can rule through fear? I mean, nothing bad could come of that, right?

Not really trolling. It seems more like a joke.

meh. either way to me its funny.

lord commissar klimino wrote:

micahaphone wrote:The sooner the USA gets more robot assassins in the sky, the better. Why rule through benevolence and the spreading of democracy if we can rule through fear? I mean, nothing bad could come of that, right?

Speaking of democracy, you brits are still hanging onto those royals, just like Mr. George III. I think we need to take a look at these people... from 65000 feet in the air.










www.xkcd.com/652

broken image is broken.