Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
"Precise" is not an absolute term. Saying that something is precise is not saying that it's unerring, infallible, or 100% accurate. You're strawmanning the hell out of them by criticizing them for saying something they never said.
And again, how is "fear of drone strikes" any different than "fear of air strikes" or "fear of missile strikes"?
edited 2nd Dec '12 8:12:03 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I actually think being more precise would also be a reason to speak against it. Overly accurate weapons is something people are afraid of, and one that shouldn't fall into wrong hands. Being able to snipe people like that may be considered unethical even by war standards. A more traditional effort-based warfare would need more investment on your part, which serves as a deterrent against using it too much.
"Assassination" is an accurate term for precision-based attacks.
![]()
Why are you assuming that I find drone strikes any different from other conventional war machine? I'm criticizing drones like any other war machine, whether cruise missiles, invasions or artillery shelling. Don't put words in my mouth, otherwise you're just strawmanning as well.
edited 2nd Dec '12 8:22:18 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.Sigh.
edited 2nd Dec '12 8:26:02 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Ideally, the president should not be allowed to say "I define person X to be a threat to our security" and then that person be killed with no intervening legal process. If congress authorizes force against a specific entity, and that entity is not under the authority of the US constitution and thus entitled to a trial under those rules, then the president has the duty to carry out those instructions as efficiently as possible.
The reason this relates to drones specifically is the degree of direct control the president has been afforded over them and the broadly vague standards of what he is allowed to declare a target. With some exceptions, the president can't usually get away with sending tanks or marines or aircraft carriers to hunt down and kill anyone, anywhere. He almost always can with drones.
<><I have plenty of issues with drones, especially in how random our attacks seem to be, ala signature strikes.
My biggest issue with drones? I don't like how detached the drones' controllers are regarding the strikes. The military slang for a man killed by a drone strike is “bug splat.”
Furthermore, the drones' controllers are being rewarded a medal of bravery for doing the killings, even though controlling a drone is entirely risk-free on the part of the controllers.
edited 2nd Dec '12 8:32:06 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.I just think it should be this way:
If there's a threat against your nation, you go to find it and neutralize it. But that threat is inside another sovereign. You issue a formal complaint that the other state has these terrorists threatening you, and ask it to remove it. If that other nation doesn't comply, and harbors the terrorists, you treat the nation itself as a foe. So you impose sanctions and all. If things get really bad, you declare war on that state.
It makes sense to go to war; you're getting attacked by another nation (translation: a foreign force that another nation refuses to deal with and in fact supports it). That's a tough decision, but it's a necessary trade-off to protect yourself. Unilateral drone strikes try to get the benefit of that war without the cost, at the expense of Pakistan. That's why it's unfair.
![]()
The problem is that Pakistan doesn't support our enemies, they just don't care/aren't competent enough to deal with the situation. They also have nukes. For obvious reasons, full war against Pakistan would massively Disproportionate Retribution.
![]()
It does, but it grins and bears it because it knows that war with the US would be long, horrible, and eventually the end of Pakistan, and as I understand it also because elements in the Pakistani government see this as a way to deal with the Taliban et al where their internal efforts have met with little success.
re: Grizzzly — Ah, so your issue isn't with drones, it's with a presidential "kill list". I can see that — though given the irregular nature of conflict against a terrorist organization, I do wonder who you think should be making the call instead of the president. Certainly asking Congress to approve every single targeted strike is untenable; it seems reasonable to me that when Congress says "go kill Al Qaida" to have the president, as the head of the executive branch and the Commander in Chief, decide who exactly constitutes high-value targets worth going after with things like drone strikes.
re: Serocco — Again, that's not unique to drones. As far as "randomness", drones are better than other methods because they allow their operators to observe their potential targets for hours before deciding whether or not to attack, while an air strike has only minutes or seconds, and a missile strike has no chance to observe at all. As far as detachment, bomber pilota or a missile boat crew are, in fact, more detached than drone operators are. A drone operator is at least watching through a TV screen, both before and after their attacks; a bomber or a missile crew are just targeting a set of coordinates and letting fly. In regards to hostile nations getting drones, well, there's no putting that genie back in the bottle. We can't un-invent the technology, so I'm not sure how "but other people will get them too!" is an argument against drone usage.
re: Trivialis — I'll take drone strikes over either a) not doing anything, or b) declaring war on a nation not directly hostile, thanks. The reason why Pakistan doesn't consider drone strikes in its territory an act of war is because the strikes are against people that the Pakistani government doesn't particularly like either, and would in fact be dealing with themselves if they were capable of doing so. They're not particularly happy about the fact that we're running roughshod over their sovereignty, but they're not opposed to the thing that we're trying to accomplish by doing so, either.
edited 2nd Dec '12 8:45:21 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Remember that the Pakistani government has a serious case of Right Hand Versus Left Hand going on; some of them want the militants in the tribal regions gone, some don't like them but don't support the US actions as a matter of principle/PR and others support the militants.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.So... why doesn't Pakistan just grant permission to enter? That would basically be internal anti-terrorist effort with external aid (though UN-supported mission would be better).
Actually that makes me consider: what if we had such terrorists within our own land? Would we risk using aerial drones? Even if Pakistan support US efforts, there's still bitterness from innocent civilians dying. And if we consider that in domestic land, people wouldn't accept it so easily.
edited 2nd Dec '12 8:49:04 PM by Trivialis
I doubt it. American domestic police agencies are reasonably controlled and capable of dealing with a small scale threat; its not like half the FBI is working with hostile elements. Pakistan has that issue. It would take the form of surveillance and covert raids/arrests for the most part.
Even the relatively pro-American segment of the Pakistani government couldn't afford to do that; at best they would have riots/a general strike. At worst they end up getting killed in a coup.
edited 2nd Dec '12 8:50:36 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects....So Pakistani government thinks taking a few casualties with drones is the only way to rout out terrorists, and can't manage the situation any other way? I guess I could understand that view.
We can't uninvent things, but we can put some international agreements to ban such technology, so that using them recklessly counts as a hostile breach of peace. We did that with biological and chemical weapons, and land mines (which US hasn't signed).
edited 2nd Dec '12 8:58:36 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Some of the Pakistani government knows that stalling the others from interfering with US actions is the best they can get as there isn't enough broad domestic support to really deal with the problem.
<><

Precise relatively speaking.
You're reading what you want into it.
But no, it's not a laser sent down from a sub-orbital satellite that can kill a single person instantly.
edited 2nd Dec '12 8:08:24 PM by TheyCallMeTomu