Do you think Drone strikers on Middle East countries are justified and successful? Are they worth it or is it just another way for the U.S to reinstate dominance and keep control? Is it a way to counter-terrorism or is it just a pointless endeavor?
Drone Strikes in the Middle East
- Thread starter PDC
- Start date
RE: Drone Strikes
What do I know about drones? Drones are the next step in war, if you want specifics the MQ-9 Reaper or MQ-1 Predator is what I am specifically talking about, which are the main UAV aircraft used for strike force missions. There are the future of drones such as Northrop Grunmman X-47B which are intended to be the futures's tools of war, a strong un-manned recon or strike force drone which has multiple rolls.
But I obviously know your intent on the question, being completly unrelated. Drones have complete different roles depending on the type, you have the Global Hawk, a pure recon drone, and then you have Predator B, the variants of X-47s, and even smaller aircraft that are for recon or different operations that are small in size and serve different roles than that of what I am talking about.
You know well what I am talking about, I don't need to explain it too you.
What do I know about drones? Drones are the next step in war, if you want specifics the MQ-9 Reaper or MQ-1 Predator is what I am specifically talking about, which are the main UAV aircraft used for strike force missions. There are the future of drones such as Northrop Grunmman X-47B which are intended to be the futures's tools of war, a strong un-manned recon or strike force drone which has multiple rolls.
But I obviously know your intent on the question, being completly unrelated. Drones have complete different roles depending on the type, you have the Global Hawk, a pure recon drone, and then you have Predator B, the variants of X-47s, and even smaller aircraft that are for recon or different operations that are small in size and serve different roles than that of what I am talking about.
You know well what I am talking about, I don't need to explain it too you.
Well. Nice googling. I can tell you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to UAS.
Orders come from above. If its vital to the mission, it is just collateral damage. Suck it up and drive on.
Oh and btw, every single UAV is meant for one thing. Recon.
For those wondering, yes, I do work on UAVs and have done so for a while now.
Orders come from above. If its vital to the mission, it is just collateral damage. Suck it up and drive on.
Oh and btw, every single UAV is meant for one thing. Recon.
For those wondering, yes, I do work on UAVs and have done so for a while now.
That's funny honestly, because I don't even think I have to know that much about UAVs to start this topic. But I guess putting a price on life for our own costs is worth it, even if it is failed. It is just "collateral" damage. Suck it up and drive on? Funny honestly, your're acting like we are at war with a country.
I'm not taking any sort of side on this debate or whatever, but I tend not to complain when the people who are protecting this fine country are still doing their job.
Gusto83 said:
UHF is cool lol. We work with radio equipment all the time.
The air force has the more popular predator and reaper. Navy has larger UAVs that are mainly recon only, and army has more infantry style mobile UAVs.
PDC said:
You seem to think that UAVs are ONLY intended to destroy buildings and families and "innocent" people. I cant tell you how many times it has saved ground guys from IEDs and ambushes. Did you know that UAVs also roam the coasts? Did you know that UAVs also help in lost persons searches across the nation to look in parts of wilderness that are inaccessible at the time?
Funny, I could've sworn that my friends whom deployed went to a war to help protect others. Odd thing that our Iraqi and Afghanistan translators are telling us that most people there actually do want America's help to rid of the terror that they live in. Funny that most terrorists are only forced to blow people up because they have no choice. I guess when you sit behind a computer all day and not experience it first hand, your view is pretty warped. You only know so much from the media.
I know UAV are not only intended to destroy, the U.S coastguard uses The Global Hawk.
You think I care and believe the media? They are all misleading and biased. You can't take anything seriously from them, they dictate most of the public. But do you think every drone strike is beneficial? In fact a speech Obama made a few days ago highlighted the importance of decreasing drone strikes and highlighting the ability to make sure that not civilians are killed. Do I think we should fully stop with drone strikes? No, that's foolish. This is a much better choice than putting soldiers or going in with human force and putting our own lives in danger. But precision, accuracy, and assurance need to be taken into account. By this I mean we should be certain that no civilian lives are in danger, as for every 1 terrorist that is killed, about 50 other people are killed as well that have no involvement in the war on terror.
You think I care and believe the media? They are all misleading and biased. You can't take anything seriously from them, they dictate most of the public. But do you think every drone strike is beneficial? In fact a speech Obama made a few days ago highlighted the importance of decreasing drone strikes and highlighting the ability to make sure that not civilians are killed. Do I think we should fully stop with drone strikes? No, that's foolish. This is a much better choice than putting soldiers or going in with human force and putting our own lives in danger. But precision, accuracy, and assurance need to be taken into account. By this I mean we should be certain that no civilian lives are in danger, as for every 1 terrorist that is killed, about 50 other people are killed as well that have no involvement in the war on terror.
I hope you have a real statistic to back that up or did u just think of that in your head. Also this country may it be Afghanistan or Iraq it is a war zone/unpeaceful country civillians die there is no way around it.PDC said:
-_- We aren't at war with Afghanistan.
I did an essay on this a couple months ago, actually. I had a hard time choosing a side, but ultimately I decided that despite the objective benefits, drone strikes are not worth the future implications. Yes, they keep our soldiers out of the front lines. But reducing human lives to distant blips on a screen makes it a lot easier not think twice about whether you'll maybe be gunning down civilians that happen to be unlucky enough to be there. War is already a very dehumanizing thing, reducing the issue to Good Country vs. Bad Country, and I do not think we need more reasons to see innocents on the other side as less valuable lives. Remote warfare is a terrifying place for us to head.
Now, you could call that a slippery slope argument, but the United States has gone as far as to nuke entire cities. Dehumanization has already stooped to extremely dangerous levels for us in the past. I just think that if we've had the technology to walk on the moon since the 60s, we should have technology that allows us to safely and effectively kill terrorists and other threats without having the uninvolved be in danger.
And before anyone says drones are that accurate and discriminatory, they aren't - of the 346 US drone strikes in Pakistan (as of 2010), out of an estimated mean of 3000 total kills, between 500 and 900 were civilians.
Now, you could call that a slippery slope argument, but the United States has gone as far as to nuke entire cities. Dehumanization has already stooped to extremely dangerous levels for us in the past. I just think that if we've had the technology to walk on the moon since the 60s, we should have technology that allows us to safely and effectively kill terrorists and other threats without having the uninvolved be in danger.
And before anyone says drones are that accurate and discriminatory, they aren't - of the 346 US drone strikes in Pakistan (as of 2010), out of an estimated mean of 3000 total kills, between 500 and 900 were civilians.
Haunted Water said:
Tell that to my friends who are out there more than I am now getting shot at and hit. IED blasts, ambushes, unsafe foot patrols through the villages. Yea, we aren't at war with anyone /sarcasm.
You all realize that UAVs carry missiles and not rounds correct? So there is a blast radius. Most bad guys there like to hide behind woman and children/other civilians sadly. For the greater good, sacrifice has to be made in the end. It happens on our end a lot too.
r3, I meant the country itself. We never declared war upon Afghanistan, we declared war upon the Taliban.
Haunted Water said:
Sorry I mean warzone or war like conditions not an actual war .
capt.penguin said:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare
Yes, I do have valid statistics, that's why they're called statistics, not made up numbers and theories. Do I think drones should still be used? Yes, of course. But drone strikes should definitely be completly well checked and highlight the attempt to not kill the people we are protecting, or at least try. A 0 civilian death ratio is almost impossible, but would I rather have 6 die than 20? Yes, I would. Considering the lack of any margianally successful mission, I feel we should stop doing repeated drone strikes which pull out less than favorable results. Have better "precision" for the lack of a better word. I am sure that those working drones make it their priority to limit civilian deaths, but there is probably more that could be done to prevent this.