The Drone News and Discussion Thread

Tuefel, the others at least showed a semblance of respect. But if you're going to demonize me and what I'm saying, then how can I talk to you? By common ground, start where we agree and then show me where we disagree. It's not me telling you; it's a basic guideline in a discussion, and we're just talking past each other if you can't do that.

You don't accomplish anything by saying this thread is frustrating in another thread. If you're frustrated, point it out over here.

Again No. You state dubious facts and make asburd statements. There is no existing common ground to begin with. Until you can sit down and make an actual factual statement we have nothing worth discussing beyond this. Others have consistently pointed out your statements as being nonsensical and absurd.

Here how abou this. Your one shot. Tell me. What is a drone?

edited 6th May '13 8:44:44 PM by TuefelHundenIV

"There is no existing common ground to begin with."

False. I've stated a common ground, no matter how basic and irrelevant you think it is:

post

• You agree with me that war and conflict should be avoided if possible, even though we might gain more from more warfare.
• You agree with me that there's more to war than "we win, you lose, we don't die, you die."
• You agree with me that overpowered weapons like nukes need deterrence.

In other words, are you going to discuss with respect or are you just going to yell at me?

Thank you Barkey, I see.

1. No

2. Nope

3. Nukes yes, Drones are in no way, shape, or form, anywhere close to the potency of nukes.

edited 6th May '13 8:53:15 PM by Barkey

Trivalis: None of which has anything to do with drones. This is the Drone Strike Thread those items are all fine and good for say the military thread but they have little to no bearing on drones and how they are used now in general. Again there is no common ground.

Oh hey look barkey shares my point of view.

One last chance you want to discuss drones share some actual factually based info you know, have, or have found something supporting. Until you can do that there is no common ground. No more waffling, posting dubious info, or absurd posts about non comprable weapons and equipment.

edited 6th May '13 9:06:18 PM by TuefelHundenIV

I guess what I'm saying is that US should remember that it shouldn't always gain things by force, even if it looks like it is able to. And the common complaint is that US is being too intrusive on other countries.

You may be right that there's nothing to gain in restricting drones in this particular scenario where terrorists in Pakistan do not pose a threat to the aircraft. When you're in a superior position without fear, you would want the best tool available.

The hope is that it stays that way, and that US recognizes when not to disturb other nations.

The debate may indeed be around whether to conduct these strikes in the first place. It's just that drones or those alternative weapons are what enables you to do that, and that's why drones get mentioned in the criticisms. It would be "just as bad" to critics of these trikes, if manned aircraft were used instead. It's just that they probably wouldn't be used for reasons you described.

I think it was brought up before: the major dissatisfaction with drones seem to be the attitude behind it, how other people see US in response to these strikes.

So you don't agree that war isn't always the best option, and that it's not always about how much you can crush the opposition?

edited 6th May '13 9:09:30 PM by Trivialis

What I'm saying is that under certain circumstances, war is the superior option, as opposed to war never being the superior option.

I took this to mean "By default, avoid war unless it's the only option." I'm talking about the best option, in relation to what your objectives are. If your objectives consist of "destabilize Al Qaeda" then war in Afghanistan was the best option to complete that objective.

And when you conduct a war, it is about how much you can crush the opposition, crushing isn't always about bringing every single gun to bear, sure, but if we had absolutely no taste for subtlety and crushing the opposition was the only thing we cared about, we wouldn't build schools or hospitals in Afghanistan, and we would have a campaign that consisted of carpet bombing every single possible insurgent hangout with B-52's.

The way we've fought in Afghan is pretty damn subtle compared to if we just didn't give a shit.

And as I've mentioned, drones are subtle, if we didn't care about striking targets in Pakistan in a subtle way, we would just tomahawk the shit out of anything we suspected was hostile. Instead we spend days and weeks hovering drones over possible targets, gathering actionable intelligence before pushing the button.

If you go to war, you aim to win. You aim to win as thoroughly as possible, while expending as few resources as possible, be it in quantifiable dollars or the lives of your soldiers. Yes, I said your(as in friendly) soldiers. Your own resources are the most important resources in a war. Hence drones instead of sending helicopters or jets into Pakistan.

edited 6th May '13 9:26:42 PM by Barkey

I know I missed the time when this would have been relevent?

But the things about drones not being stopable because there unmaned? And thus makes the pilot complacently immune to retribution is not true...

It is only true when a sovereign nation uses them against an insurgancy....

If an insurgancy got them, or it was sovereign nation against sovereign nation they CAN be stoped.... you attack the control center, there is still a pilot there... you can kill the pilot, and render the drones scap

Hell, its even simpiler really, if you just want to protect an area, park an electronics warfare vehicle near by, and start jaming.... any drone which enters the area will lose signal, activate its backup script and return to base, terrorists did this for a while with 100usd of equipment you could buy from the local store. :/

The truth is, drones are MORE vunerable then traditional aircraft if you know how to stop them, and this is why they will never replace them.... there an amazing tool, they have there uses and they perform them well... but there overhyped by the public, there not a dilevery system from the gods, there a fancy controlled plane with a missle straped to it.... which fun fact, that tech has been around and in use since WWII, and just now people are complaining about it?

edited 6th May '13 9:28:05 PM by Imca

- Peeks head in -

Just for the record, my issue isn't with the drones themselves, but with the self-righteousness we attach to our military operations overseas. I have no complaints over a drone being used for surveillance or the elimination of an HVT that is a confirmed threat. Where I draw the line is this xenophobic, chest-thumping, star-spangled jerk-off mentality in which Americans collectively put on their sunglasses and say "deal with it" when we are legitimately criticized for unscrupulous activities on other people's turf.

When we sent ST 6 into Pakistan to apprehend Bin Laden, my only concern was that we violated Pakistan's sovereignty in doing so. As for the raid itself, cool beans. However, I was pissed when I saw and heard about Americans dancing in the street, making anti-Muslim, anti-Arab chants in bars, Facebook and other places, and people posting pictures of Obama beheading Bin Laden.

And the reason why I don't say much about that particular issue is because a.) it's technically off-topic and b.) says more about our mindset as a nation and much less about the technology. I don't mind if we're using drones, mobile suits or the damn Justice League to fight the Taliban and its brethren. I do mind our massively inflated egos. You can't act all ultra-patriotic and say "deal with it" when that arrogance is costing the lives of our troops as well as both our civilians and the civilians of other nations.

But as for drones, sure, use them.

Talk amongst yourselves.

- Slips back out -

- Peeks back in -

Oh, and Barkey is right about the importance of subtlety. I suppose the silver lining to the War On Terror (and I've said this several times before) is that while the United States comes off as a bunch of assholes, we're not so low as to reduce Afghanistan to a prehistoric crater. Many Americans want that to happen, but we won't do it, and it's one thing I'm proud of. Let's keep it that way.

Alright, I'm out.

Yes, that was my point

edited 6th May '13 9:34:45 PM by Aprilla

Okay, those sentiments are shared, I cant stand the kind of stuff the amercian military pulls and then tries to paint itself as inocent, but... the conversation is drones right?

And as a weapons platform there is nothing worth blaming about them, the people using them can be another story.

^^

Which is why I keep noting that it's a valid position to talk about being against the raids in Pakistan, but that blaming the technology is, as I've mentioned, idiotic.

Keeping this conversation on-track and logical is why I'm being such an asshole about it. I don't like bullshit rhetoric. I'm into reality, not spouting idealistic bullshit that doesn't work with logic.

edited 6th May '13 9:42:23 PM by Barkey

That was my first point. "You agree with me that war and conflict should be avoided if possible, even though we might gain more from more warfare." That means war isn't always the answer. Under certain circumstances, it might not be really possible.

But otherwise, we might potentially gain more from going to war with other nations, but I don't think we should always choose war just because we gain from it. I would only agree if there was a stronger reason than mere net gain for country. Critics of War in Iraq might say we gained from it but we still shouldn't have done it.

I guess I phrased it too vaguely. I was emphasizing that what seems like a gain to a country isn't always worth a war.

Then I don't see why you disagree with "You agree with me that there's more to war than "we win, you lose, we don't die, you die."" There are other options to war besides continuing it until the opposition is crushed and we snatched everything from the remains. After all, sometimes we could gain more from taking the gamble and continuing with the war, but that means we have to win, which isn't a guarantee. We could stop the war and make peace for mutual gain, and like you said, we could rebuild the other side after agreement was achieved instead of taking everything away from them.

Winning isn't succeeding in a killing spree, though. If you make the other nation concede, you've won. War is really about achieving stated goals and convincing the will of your opponent to do what you want, not scoring the most kills/destruction. And sometimes, taking some casualties and achieving a said goal is considered more of a win, as opposed to avoiding those casualties and ending up making concessions yourself. That's why I said "We don't die, you die" doesn't quite cut it.

In summary, I think you're right; it's not really about drones after all. They're just the carriers of some underlying attitude or decision that might or might not be correct, and that's where the criticisms happen. And I'm not implying that drones have to be singled out. On the contrary, they're better off included as a subset of weaponry, and those weaponry and war itself should be handled with care, which is why I was talking about appropriate degrees of deterrence for war and its weapons.

edited 6th May '13 9:42:46 PM by Trivialis

Then you're off-topic, because this thread isn't about the morality of when to wage war.

I'm debating the "avoided if possible" part.

Basically I'm saying that I would be opposed to a war if a reason was relatively "shallow", like invading another country so we can take its riches and resources and make our citizens wealthier. That's when I especially care about the status of the other country and its people, rather than just my own.

Would morality of the strikes on Pakistan be on topic? Otherwise I've already said that this may be the real complaint behind the drones, and there's really nothing more to say.

Forgive me for not keeping up on politics related to a country I am not a citizen of...

But hasn't Pakistan been more hostile to the United States then Iraq or Afghanistan in general have?

In a more passive and political manner, Pakistan is a complicated issue involving a myriad of factions who are balancing on a tightrope.

Okay, thanks.

I would ask more but that is not the point or scale of the topic, but that amount alows me to understand whats going on, thanks Barkey.

Aprilla: I can pretty much completely agree with your latest post.

Morality of the strikes would be very much on topic. Personally I find them to be at best on shaky ground. For some of the reasons Aprilla listed in his previous post.

If I recall correctly didn't we have some semi-covert backing of the Pakistani government for the cross border strikes in the first place? Part of why none of our drones have been shot down by their AA capabilities.

Read up on the current Pakistani Regime, the ISI, Lashkar e Taiba, Al Qaeda Arabian Peninsula, and Pashtun ethnic relations in the tribal areas, particularly involving the Taliban. A good understanding of those groups and the way they interact with each other is pretty much how you get to the heart of Pakistani issues as related to counter-terrorism.

^

That is correct. We've actually never conducted a strike without approval from the Pakistani government. At one point they ordered a cease and desist, and the CIA halted attacks until they bargained acceptance from them again.

But gaining that approval was not difficult, because the Pakistani government needs us to do this. They aren't in control in the tribal areas anymore, and Taliban increasingly is. They need us to weaken their enemies in the tribal areas as they cannot handle them, but at the same time they have to boo and hiss at the evil imperialists because the local smallfolk expect nothing less.

So openly, they admonish us. Privately, it's an enemy of my enemy is my friend situation. We want to engage Taliban forces who stage their strikes from inside Pakistan, Pakistan wants those guys dead because they are inciting all sorts of shit in their backyard. Meanwhile, LET, a nastier version of Al Qaeda that the whole world is going to learn about at some point in the next decade, is playing against both the Taliban and the Pakistani government, with shaky neutrality and cooperation with the ISI against India.

edited 6th May '13 10:22:04 PM by Barkey

Although, the US is intrusive often without using force — in most cases, it doesn't need to. See US Corporations with chains of stores worldwide: see Coke-Coca, McDonalds and the like — the US is using Soft power.

That is how Drones themselves are being viewed, by Militaries, Governments and the Media. They are just an aircraft like any other. The controversy is how they are used, not the equipment itself.

In addition, I agree with Barkey about Pakistan. It was region that not even The British Empire could fully stabilise.

And, If you're worrying about "Drone Proliferation", it's the Chinese you need to worry about, not the Americans:

edited 6th May '13 11:09:46 PM by Greenmantle

New jihadi magazine appeals for help against drones

Like Inspire, it may or may not be created by the US government as Schmuck Bait. But if genuine, it's a tacit admission that drones are effective against the militants.

Found this image◊ on Facebook from a page that declares "Nobody for President." Anyone willing to cite their sources?

I disagree with the message, but the numbers seem fairly sound.

I imagine it comes from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism's "Covert Drone War" project. The BIJ estimates that Obama has ordered 318 drone strikes, killing between 2548-3549 people, between 411-890 of which were civilians (and between 168-197 of those were children). Other estimates come from the Long War Journal, and the New America Foundation. There are various other ones of dubious trustworthiness.

edited 29th Jun '13 2:26:03 AM by Achaemenid

I agree entirely with that message. As long as the message is "we use drones a ton more than we used to because they're the best tools at the moment for the wars we're currently fighting.". Like when the next pres will probably order more cyberkillerdozer attacks because they're the next step in warfare.

edited 29th Jun '13 7:28:02 AM by betaalpha