Right, so earlier this year, around January, the issue of unmanned drones being used in areas of the middle east came up in the news. The central theme of the issue being that Iraqi officials were upset that even though troops were officially withdrawing, the drones were still being used and causing all kinds of damage. Our side underplayed it saying they were only surveillance. In the same breath, they confirmed that they were being used in Pakistan but they were trying really really hard not to kill civilians. Glad they’re making an attempt at not killing innocent folks in another country…
Anyways, turns out they’ve been a bit more prolific than the earlier report, with somewhere around 281 attacks in Pakistan causing 1299 militant deaths and at least 153 civilian deaths. That’s about 10% of the deaths being civilians. Imagine if there was a crazy group of people here in the US that was attacking people in other countries; terrorists if you will. Now also imagine if the country retaliated with remote control bombs that took out members of that organization but accidentally killed 1 civilian out of every one of their targets… Now imagine the mass outrage and the number of nukes we’d drop on that country… Yeah, no wonder other countries hate us.
And what the heck guys? Isn’t the guy signing off on all these attacks the same one who won a Nobel prize for his peaceful conflict resolutions and whatnot?
Man… this one was kinda depressing…
No, he won his Nobel Peace Prize with the wishful thinking by the Nobel committee and for not being George Bush.
touché my good sir! I guess that’s the best they can ask of any one person. >)
still… in all fairness, I’ll probably end up voting for him again… nobody else seems to razzle dazzle me much. >\ well… maybe if they can get Nixon’s head on the body of Agnu then we might have some good competition. XD
I believe we should use uavs (or drones, as you like to call them) in war. Overall, they are much cheaper than using piloted jets, especially when considering the cost when they get shot down. Besides, most are intended for surveillance, only launching attacks for “targets of opportunity”. And, to be fair, it’s difficult to miss civilians in guerrilla warfare, where your enemy makes sure to blend in with non-combative civilians.
yeah, that’s the unfortunate thing with guerrilla tactics, using civilians as shields. really messed up.
Wait! Drones are cheaper than manned jets?! I don’t belive it!!!!
If that were to be so, humanity would be utterly hopeless against the vile U.S. empire!!!!
…..
We’re done for, aren’t we? :(
well, by a few million (but when you’re talking $150 million plus for each air unit (drone or manned), it’s kinda a drop in the bucket…
the neat thing is that these will some day be capable of much more maneuvering power than the current jets. despite whatever advances we make, we still have a squishy little person in the seat… but without a human in the plane, you can do all those fun things you do in the video games and not worry about splattering the guy inside from g forces.
well, in theory anyways, a few years off of having a proper high speed/realtime remote relay and probably there’s a limit to what the machine itself can take… still… it’s pretty interesting to think of the possibilities these types of crafts could have!
next up, remote control tanks!
If you are near a legitimate military target, it ceases to be the fault of the attacker if you die. If _____ country declared war on the US and bombed our military bases killing hundreds of woman and children, those noncombatant deaths because the fault of the US for placing noncombatants in a military base (a legitimate military target). If we had sailors’ families with them on board aircraft carries and our aircraft carrier gets nuked, the civilian deaths are our fault for putting those families on a legitimate military target. Just so, if you are a terrorist and you’re with your wife and kids when you get blown up, their deaths because your fault for willfully placing your wife and kids near a legitimate military target. If we go by the policy that having a 0 civilian death count is the most important thing that overrides all else, every terrorist is going to walk around with a baby strapped to his chest 24/7 and we will never be able to do anything. Deaths resulting from the proximity of civilians to a legitimate military target are the fault of the one being attacked for allowing civilians close to what they know is targeted to get blown up at any minute.
1299 militant deaths and 153 civilian deaths. The vast majority of those civilians are sympathizers who willfully place themselves near the enemy or are placed with legitimate military targets by legitimate military targets. Those deaths are on the terrorists’ heads.
I could also get into the fact that since the enemy chooses to not be uniformed, we don’t know who is and isn’t a militant and a civilian leading to more of these deaths. If the enemy chose to be uniformed and fight a real war instead of just being terrorists randomly bombing things, that would reduce civilian casualties drastically (as well as end the war fast as they would be killed infinitely faster).
The enemy makes a plethora of choices revolving around being terrorists that cause these civilian deaths. I really don’t feel responsible for deaths resulting from us being forced to use the only manner of war left available to us (drones) by the enemy’s choice to be terrorists.
I would say that’s fine, if I didn’t live within an earshot of a big military base here in FL. (ok, a bomb wouldn’t reach me, but a nuke would do me it, and there are plenty of neighborhoods within a reasonable bomb blast range)
sometimes you don’t really get to choose how close you end up being. hell, some might not know one is around the corner. they have a tendency to crop up in the weirdest spots.
and while I’d argue in your favor that if you live in that country, you are also part of their fight… I’d also like to counter argue that some folks see compliance as the only thing they can do. just look at all those countries in the big world wars… or any war for that matter. most folks just want to be left alone and go about their business. some get swept up in the propaganda because they don’t know any different. and fewer are all out for the cause, because, well, they’re the idiots in charge pulling the strings. I don’t like to think anyone is inherently bad and a lot of war is caused by gross amounts of miscommunication or bad leadership…
I guess in the end it doesn’t matter much because conflict is just part of the nature of the game (you win or die. 10pts for the first to guess the quote source). conflict can be seen as inevitable, though I’d really hope some day we’d be able to curb all the stupidity for at least one or two generations.
suppose the point of this rant is that I’d rather we dispose all avenues to avoid fighting/war etc, but if you’re going to do it, you gotta do it right. and by right I obviously mean use a giant “laser” on the moon…
Game of Thrones FTW
>D
Thing is in many of these countries, they don’t know their neighbors, or are afraid to say anything. Kind of like in some communities here, where they know a drug dealer is operating in their neighborhood, but if someone speaks up a drive by shooting can occur. And they don’t have the money to just pack everything up and move out.
As I wrote in an earlier comic, we are not ready to ”create” another lifeform ( yes , droids in a sense are a lifeform ). Just look at the all chaotic outcome stories starting from Matrix.
I mean, we have too many flaws and I HIGHLY doubt using droids will make it anybetter.
You know what make it better ? Do not go on those countries and wreck the place in the FIRST PLACE !
I’m not even sure how to approach rebutting you saying drones are a life form when they aren’t and it’s irrelevant to the discussion anyway, so I won’t even try.
As for your sentiment of not going into other countries and wrecking them up in the first place, that I can address. It is not arguable that Afghanistan actively provided harbor and aid to terrorist groups directly responsible for attacks on Americans on American soil (unless you think Osama is a U.S. agent and Bush arranged it all in which case you’re so far gone I can’t help you). This is an act of war. If you want us to just dismiss and ignore acts of war, you’re asking for them to be repeated. I am not and never will I be ready to be so blindly pacifist as to ignore organizations hijacking planes and flying them into buildings (including the Pentagon which clearly makes it an act of war as well as an act of terrorism since they attacked the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense). When this occurs there is only one option, war. The purpose of said war is to eliminate the threat of the enemy nation responsible for or directly supporting of the act of war. There are three ways to do this. The first is to invade that nation and install a friendly government. The second is to invade that nation and allow the people to pick their own government while ensuring that new government does not present a new threat. The third option is the destruction of the nation. This would include the destruction of the military, industry, infrastructure, agriculture, natural recourse exploitation and extraction facilities, transportation, communication, and all government facilities leaving the nation a demolished stone age wasteland. Be glad we chose to expend our own recourses and lives invading these enemy nations to remove the threat instead of destroying the enemy nations to accomplish the same goal at a cheaper cost to us.
First, I mixed the facts of ”Drones” and ”Droids” ( it was late so I read it wrong )
Second, in no shape or form , you can invade other countries with little to no evidence ( Iraq rings a bell ? ) ,cause mass destruction , drain their resources ( you know since you spend yours while INVADING ).
I do not condone any terrorist acts. Hell my country , Turkey , is getting 100 of them every year in the east. But the way US acts ….he is not making ANY friends with the rest of the world. Just look at the reasons and actions of their last ”invasions”. And the invaded nations are better for it ? Really ? You believe those people are much happier because US invaded ? How many people rise up against the invaders and put down a day ? ….. Yours is just wishful thinking that ” We are doing them a favor ” while the casualty numbers and the ”benefits” hidden behind doors.
NOTHING good can come out of war. The World survived 2 World Wars and who gained what ?! 6 MILLION deaths.
You know why US is a target for these terror acts ? Because how they present themselves. They are the big bullies and love to throw their weight. They look down on you and only interested in your ”good-will” when they benefit from it.
These are the facts that’ve been proven in the past and no amount of PR tactics or false statements can cover it up. Do you think people would care about US enough to perform terrorism if they were just ”minding their own business ” ? These countries are just went bonkers and decided to oppose US out of nowhere ?
Just look at the background and the reasons why US is actually its OWN biggest enemy,draining itself from the inside. And I feel sorry for all the soldiers in the field, wasting their lives….commiting acts that will haunt them rest of their lives….for the greed of those ”in power ” .
All I see is a medieval Witch-hunt….burn a village to kill 1 demon.
There, if you won’t work with other nations and act as ” IMMA GONNA DO THIS , DON’T CARE WHAT YOU SAY ” …then you deserve to be villified.
heh, it was kinda my fault, I played with the droid/drone terminology with the comic. >)
in response to DE, if playing Civilization has taught me anything about international conflict resolution and endgame war philosophy, it’s that the best method for dealing with newly conquered peoples is connect tons of trade routes and send in supplies, luxuries, fix up the adjacent tiles, and of course provide a strong military presence to quell any rioting.
but usually it’s just easier to raze the city and start fresh with a new settler in the same spot. >)
<-(is evil)
as for the overall topic, I think it’s important to try and look at both sides… either can be vilified and again, the vast majority of the people from either side probably would rather things blow over and go about their way. this is why I think all global conflicts should be solved with the respective leaders engaging in some sort of fisticuffs and leaving the citizens out of it… or maybe do a Halo championship… something like that.
As to the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, I just recently posted a list of reasons including the attempted assassination of a sitting President of the United States of America. I really don’t need anything more than that for it to be justified. The destruction and recourse drain that happens to a nation being invaded legitimately is no concern of mine. It is entirely on the heads of the Iraqis who gave us a legitimate reason to invade.
As for your next paragraph, I’m not interested in making friends. I’m interested in eliminating threats. If the U.S.A. killing terrorists makes other people hate us and become terrorists, then they will be killed as well. I know I’m not doing them a favor, and I’m not interested in doing them a favor. I’m interested in eliminating threats. As for your “NOTHING good can come out of war.”, that is an extremely ignorant and uneducated statement. If you take war off the table completely then you allow evil to win. If the U.S.A. thought like that you would be speaking either German or Russian right now (probably German).
You want to justify the reasoning of the terrorists who wish to attack us, but one critical difference remains between me and them. Regardless of the reasons behind why the terrorists want to do what they do, they would be glad to kill me and my wife and my daughter and every other American that is alive today. I on the other hand wish only to kill those who threaten my people. My goal is to protect my people while their goal is to kill every American they can get their hands on. When someone would be glad to kill my daughter with no other purpose than to kill an American, I don’t care why they want to do it, I simply want them dead.
When what you say is foolish and illogical I most certainly will say “IMMA GONNA DO THIS , DON’T CARE WHAT YOU SAY”. And I certainly am willing to destroy a village’s worth of terrorist sympathizers in order to kill not one, but a thousand terrorists. You don’t like it? Then get out of my way because I have a job to do, killing those who want to kill my daughter.
Also @ Coffinshaker, having a battle between champions to solve disputes instead of wars would be less costly but that requires both sides to be honrable participants. I highly doubt the terrorists or Saddam would be/would have been willing to end the conflict with a battle of champions. Even if they said they were, could you really trust Saddam or whoever now leads al qaeda to hold to their word and not claim the war/Jihad needs to continue becuase the U.S.A. used Satatnic/Jewish sorcery to win?
ha! you lost me at “battle between governmental leaders” and “honorable participants”! so much for that idea… XD
Accidental civilian death is very unfortunate (though any war or death is really). However, accidental civilian casualties when you are trying to strike at a military target seems more understandable, to me, then intentionally making the civilians themselves your target as many terrorist organizations tend to do.
yeah… guess it’s one of those unfortunate byproducts. I suppose at least in targeted military strikes, your prime objective is to really miss as many civilians as possible, because at the end of the day, they are the ones that inherit the country and have to carry on. best to not give them a reason to start disliking you.
Not really coffin… in targeted military strikes your objective is to hit as many objective targets as possible.
And generaly it is efficient not to waste your munition and manpower elsewhere… to put it bluntly- where there is worth in it minimalizing colateral damage. But if you start minimalizing collateral damage at expense of achieving your objectives… well in that case you have already lost a war.
You see war is easy- you kill enemies and try them to prevent kill you and your forces. Who is left in the end, wins. (To quote George S. Patton: “It is not point of war to die for one´s country, point is to make the other
bastards die for theirs)”
So why are automated drones used? Because it is cheaper than outfitting large amounts of infantry to the same job. Manpower is actualy the most costly piece of warfare… maintaining 100 ICMBs with nukes is actualy cheaper than having a tank battalion for 10 years. However to have any effect enemy must know you have will to use them… otherwise they are too expensive to keep at all.
Single “gamer” can fly twenty drones from computer in florida… definitely cheaper then 20 F16 pilots with their planes… not to mention that he can actualy remotly pull off 20G turn… if drone permited…
Read up on Sun Tzun a bit… he put economy (managment of resources) in warfare on paper. He has never been prooven wrong.