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.

 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.