[Baff]

Why not drop some mini nukes on Kabul for example? I am sure many terrorist sympathizers live in that city.

Nukes are expensive.
Better to just drop a bag of peanuts.

Kabul is the capital and as such has always been willng to play ball with invaders.
The problems in Afghanistan lie in the remote provinces where the law cannot reach.


It's actually surprisingly big country and would take a very large amount of nukes to get coverage.
They don't know who is their enemy and who is their friend in Afghanistan.

[Locke II]

I think you're missing the point

[Egreggorous]

So would someone please inform me why so many people lately have been protesting these 'Drone Attacks' I mean what's wrong with the U.S. and it's allies using them?

I don't see a difference between drone attacks and other types of manned bombing flights. THe problem is bombing. You want to get an enemy, go get them, don't blow up an entire block killing all the innocent people around them. That's barbaric, that is terrorism, and no amount of justification and say "ow well, this is war" can justify it. If US ever was truly attacked and bombed like that, the people in this country would be up in arms calling for destruction of the country doing the bombing.

If people can't see what is wrong with that, they are part of the problem of humanities long line of fucked up and vile behavior, and basically endless war and blood shed

[redcarpet]

That's barbaric, that is terrorism

No it's not.

It's called the 'Double Effect'. In which a party to a conflict attacks a military target but inadvertently kills/injures civilians.

[Kman]

It's called the 'Double Effect'. In which a party to a conflict attacks a military target but inadvertently kills/injures civilians.

Ooooh so you and your lawyer friends have invented a new phrase for killing innocent people, did you people spend a lot of time coming up with this new phrasing?

[redcarpet]

I suggest you do some reading. EG: Yoram Dinstein's books.

[Kman]

I suggest you do some reading.

Why? Can you explain to me what great knowledge I will gain from reading these books? Will I suddenly see the light and learn that killing innocent women and children is somehow ok?

[redcarpet]

Not saying it's 'okay'. That's a Strawman Argument. It mostly lawful in the LOIAC.

Talking as if all civilian deaths in armed conflict are illegal is just false.

[SteveDaPirate]

Dave, I believe drones can indeed serve a useful role.

The two advantages I see UCAVs having over an F-16 are loiter time and the lack of a pilot. From the information I’ve seen, a late model F-16 has an endurance of around 3.5-4 hours when making use of conformal fuel tanks, while the MQ-9 Reaper can loiter with a full weapons load for 14 hours without refueling.

This gives UCAVs the ability to stay on station for extended periods of time without risking pilot fatigue. It is also useful for close air support, as it requires far fewer platforms to maintain constant coverage of ground forces.

As far as the price tag is concerned, UCAVs are still in their infancy, and I believe only 60 or so MQ-9s have been produced as opposed to 4 or 5 thousand F-16s. Once UCAVs are put into full rate production I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see the price per unit come down quite a bit.

That being said, I don’t see UCAVs replacing traditional fighter aircraft. They don’t seem to be too well suited for the air superiority role, and in high threat environments they aren’t likely to survive long, but for missions requiring loitering above a target or when having a pilot shot down is too much of a risk I believe they have a role.

[skeptic-1]

Not saying it's 'okay'. That's a Strawman Argument. It mostly lawful in the LOIAC.

Talking as if all civilian deaths in armed conflict are illegal is just false.

I think borders still play an important part in world societies and intervention should not be employed if the participants are those within their own borders and stay there . OR we declare WAR and wipe out that which we jointly (under our laws) feel justified in doing by order of congress.

The use of drones de humanizes warfare to the extent we could use teenagers to man them (they are already trained in the use of computer games}. I want those who initiate war and its devices to be in equal danger as the foe of having their guts blown out of their bellies and their limbs torn from their bodies. :-) Not having their performance toted up on a computer like a bowling score.

[OnTPath]

the 9-11 alqueda use of force resolution

Hehe good one ! It's a variation of Leone's/Eastwood's "The good, the bad, the ugly", the cemetery scene with the stone where supposedly the name of the grave is written on, only here it reads "all of them", HeHeHe. Now I'm 100% sure Al-Qaida is for the most part a CIA affiliate, it's perfect ! It's kind of a brand, a label !!
Need something ? Put an Al-Qaida stamp on it then proceed as you like. Eternal war -> eternal profits & control !

Reality now IS a Hollywood movie ! Haha

[Kman]

Not saying it's 'okay'. That's a Strawman Argument. It mostly lawful in the LOIAC.

Talking as if all civilian deaths in armed conflict are illegal is just false.

And who determines the legality of something? Where do these people derive their authority to say that killing innocent people is ''legal''?

[redcarpet]

How is a combantant 'innocent'?

They have to be POWs to be immune to attack.

[ComSec]

The main issue seems to be the civilian deaths that drones cause. Of course I'm not sure how any country can fight a brutal insurgency like the Taliban that's indistuinguishable from civilians (and sometimes even uses civilians as human shields) without incurring any loss of civilian life.

[Rich]

The problem is that, contrary to the propaganda of "surgical strikes" and the like, there are about 50 collateral casualties for every terrorist actually killed.

I think its 50 people for every known militant leader. A lot more than one in 50 are terrorists even by the normal loose standard for terrorists. Any Muslim who supports the death penaly for apostacy is a terrorist and in my book and can be wiped out with no more moral consideration than one would give to swatting a Malaria ridden Mosquito.

However these drone strikes do kill innocent people and therefore should not be done without very good reason. There is no good reason particularly, when we buddy it up and pump money into Saudi and the Pakistani security state. The Wahhabi establishment, the house of Saudi and the Pakistani security establishment is the real axis of evil in the world today. Its like paying money to North Vietnam to support our war against the Vietcong. First order madness!

[skeptic-1]

redcarpet:That's barbaric, that is terrorism[/quote]

No it's not.

It's called the 'Double Effect'. In which a party to a conflict attacks a military target but inadvertently kills/injures civilians.[/quote]

What is barbaric is that our minds can reach such conclusions.

The herd needs thinning by the most painful of methods.

[redcarpet]

Well this isn't a world of pacifism.

War and many tactics to wage it are legal. And
in many cases civilian deaths are legal too, if there is a
'military advantage' in battle achieved

[redcarpet]

Here is a facinating, detailed article on Obama &
drones in the NYT. BBC documentary style. The NYT at last showing some political
spine and investigative quality.