Predator Drones

[nlacy 692]

There seems to be some debate about Predator Drones. I think they're pretty cool, but not 100% sold on them.

 

Good: No American troops in danger, kills lots of bad guys

 

Bad: Kind of reminds me of the Hunter Killers from Terminator, hard to "win hearts and minds" and as long as people hate us they will try to kill us (unless we kill them all first).

 

 

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/26/140807753/in-the-hunt-for-al-qaida-drone-program-expands

[Dad2142Dad 6,559]

There seems to be some debate about Predator Drones. I think they're pretty cool, but not 100% sold on them.

 

Good: No American troops in danger, kills lots of bad guys

 

Bad: Kind of reminds me of the Hunter Killers from Terminator, hard to "win hearts and minds" and as long as people hate us they will try to kill us (unless we kill them all first).

 

 

http://www.npr.org/2...program-expands

 

That is it's only purpose beyond taking pics

[Deadeye 325]

I am all for not endangering our troops.

[BpS12 512]

I think they are a good thing but problematic. Needs MUCH better video imaging so we don't kill our troops/allies.

 

And most of all, they ARE what our gov' WILL use against "We the People" should they decide it expediant to their cause.

[Mullet Man 2,114]

I think they are a good thing but problematic. Needs MUCH better video imaging so we don't kill our troops/allies.

 

And most of all, they ARE what our gov' WILL use against "We the People" should they decide it expediant to their cause.

 

 

Arent they (or some sort of drone) already being used in TX, for traffic violations?

[thebuns1 4,323]

I think they are a good thing but problematic. Needs MUCH better video imaging so we don't kill our troops/allies.

 

And most of all, they ARE what our gov' WILL use against "We the People" should they decide it expediant to their cause.

 

 

Arent they (or some sort of drone) already being used in TX, for traffic violations?

 

florida does it as well with choppers.

 

. these drones can be used in a multitude of ways. from recon, down to outright attacking enemy positions. and they fly so damn high, its hard for a sam or equivilant weapon to reach them.

 

id say they have good image quality. far better than the shit we had in the gulf war. a lot of the problems are not with the equipment, its the end user that may need to be re-evaluated for the job at hand.

 

and sadly, these things prolly already are used against us.

[RobRez 1,895]

The ability to Kill without reprocussion, or any risk to the "Killer" only promotes war.

Without risk to ones self....Why NOT kill??

Somehow it seems wrong to me. If you aren't willing to risk you own life you should have no right to take the life of another. Just my humble opinion here folks.

[Odd Man Out 1,283]

Bad: hard to "win hearts and minds" and as long as people hate us they will try to kill us (unless we kill them all first).

 

The areas that lethal drones are being used; Somalia, Yemen, North and South Waziristan and NW Pakistan are made up of populations of people that are vehemently against the US -- a campaign of handing out free Korans with One Billion local currency inside would not do anything to change their minds. The best "Hearts and Minds" campaign is one where the hearts and minds of our enemies are seperated from their bodies.

 

And most of all, they ARE what our gov' WILL use against "We the People" should they decide it expediant to their cause.

 

Paranoid much??? The operators of the drones are active military types (yes even the CIA drones are operated by assigned Mil types). Last time I checked (when I was in) the mil population is a freedom loving bunch. The idea that somehow pockets of anti govt groups (aka Tea Party members -- me being one of them) will be targeted -- taken out with Hellfire missiles on domestic soil without repercussions is at best science fiction. If you want to get paranoid just check out all the traffic cams that are out there. And yes, they ARE watching you!!!!

 

The ability to Kill without reprocussion, or any risk to the "Killer" only promotes war. Somehow it seems wrong to me.

 

Fairness has no place in defense or warfare. When you are faced with an enemy that is operating under the premise that all that do not believe as they need be killed, fairness flies out the window -- you are in a fight for survival. It is always easy to campaign for fairness when 1000's of miles behind the lines. Heck, I am all for sattilite based lasers that can zap our enemies anywhere in the world at a moments notice. The ability to live life without fear from terrorist attack, now that is fair.

[RobRez 1,895]

OK, fair enough. But then that begs the question, "Why the heck do we even have any Rules of War at all?" Mustard gas bombing can certainly keep our boys out of the line of fire, as can carpet bombing entire countries. Even simple hollow point and soft point ammo, and good old fasioned torture could help out in that dept.

It all sounds great to me, yet is somhow "immoral" to some.

It would seem that pretty much Every war is an equation of "You don"t believe what I believe" so I don't see the connection there quite so much.

Unless it is a war for profit, that is.

[Odd Man Out 1,283]

Mustard gas not so good -- prevailing winds may change...

Carpet bombing not so good -- inefficient and wasteful

Hollow point and soft point -- sounds almost humane to me, why have people suffer??? But the Geneva convention says no so we must abide.

Torture. Hmmmm. That is tricky nowadays. Is lack of sleep torture? Is getting water up your nose torture? Nowadays in our pampered politically correct society, oh yeah it sure is. I think it is okay to use said "torture" if it gets results, and the past has proven that it has gotten results. Pullin fingernails, electrodes to the gonads, blood pain -- yup that is a tad over the line and I wouldn't subscribe to it. Besides it has been shown that torture, as opposed to aggresive interrogation techniques do not yield trustworthy results -- the tortured will give any info needed to stop the torture.

 

An opposition of idealogy -- democracy vs communisim or the free world against Fascism is a bit different than a war between secular and non secular ideals.

Fighting people who believe that their religion tasks them to irradicate all non believers to the point that they will strap on a suicide vest or kill their own progeny for faults against the religion is a bit different than going against an organised armed force. One might bring up the fact about the Japanese in WW2 with the suicide banzai charges but again that behavior was rooted in the cult of Bushido and emperor worship -- quasi religious beliefs.

[RobRez 1,895]

All good points. However, I was thinking that we would not have our soldiers even in those countries, so drones could drop Mustard gas all day long and our troops would all be safely behind computer monitors.

It could seem that the best solution is to just eradicate entire populations of undesired countries and simply re-populate them with Americans and make them New States. Folks in Arizona and New Mexico might find the climate inviting. I agree that anything to keep our soldiers out of harm is a positive thing. I just don't quite get the whole rules thing. You can kill him THIS way, but not THAT way. It still kind of creeps me out having Drones or Robots killing people.

[termite 463]

Didn't someone once say "that when you have your enemies balls, firmly in your hands, their hearts and minds will follow". Wasn't it Patton that said that. I say, squeeze them sum bitches as hard as you can.

[LeoPTY 24]

Drone strikes have been a great asset to US efforts in killing terrorists. The only change that I would suggest is to bring the drone program entirely out of the CIA and place it under the auspices of the military (if this has not happened already). This would lend greater accountability, visibility and long-term credibility, in addition to faster drone adoption in other theaters.

[MT Predator 2,294]

Drone strikes have been a great asset to US efforts in killing terrorists. The only change that I would suggest is to bring the drone program entirely out of the CIA and place it under the auspices of the military (if this has not happened already). This would lend greater accountability, visibility and long-term credibility, in addition to faster drone adoption in other theaters.

The Predators have been under the control of the military for many moons. The "CIA" drone strikes are "clean" military assets, flown by military pilots, under the direction of the CIA because Pakistan is so fucked up, a military action is a No Go, but a covert strike by a Secret Squirrel agency is Ok with them. I've had the opportunity to work with the Predator folks numerous times dating as far back as Bosnia and Kosovo up to Afghanistan. They were flying out of Pakistan to Afghanistan. Now they are flying out of Afghanistan striking targets in Pakistan. Go fgure. I've been in the pod where the cockpit is and have seen first hand how awesome the cameras and sensor arrays work, (from a very high altitude). Just like the AC-130 gunships, you are not hiding from that kind of technology and since it is so small and quiet, you will never hear it while it is above you.

Another cool little hand held UAV is the Desert Hawk which is a Force Protecton Airborne Surveillance System used for monitoring the perimeters at deployed bases. It is controlled with a laptop. I know some guys that figured it would work good to fly one ahead of their convoys in Iraq to get eyes on first. The operator flew it from the passenger seat of a moving guntruck. That kind of thinking worked out for them as they did catch insurgents setting up ambushes so they called a Predator on station to get better eyes on the target, which passed on solid target confirmation to some Apaches who gave them the good news.

[timy 1,185]

The ability to Kill without reprocussion, or any risk to the "Killer" only promotes war.

Without risk to ones self....Why NOT kill??

Somehow it seems wrong to me. If you aren't willing to risk you own life you should have no right to take the life of another. Just my humble opinion here folks.

 

This is true enough, especially the part about "no risk to oneself". It's easy enough for those in charge to commit troops to whatever conflict of the moment they happen to choose at no personal cost to themselves. That's why I believe the best way to fight wars is to have the politicians themselves do it. I'm thinking that all of a sudden there would be a lot less saber rattling and governments worldwide would quickly learn the meaning of respect for different viewpoints. As an added bonus, we might not have to worry so much about trying to get term limits imposed on these lifetime "servants". A win/win situation if you ask me.

 

I'll continue to dream.

 

tim

[storm6490 2,768]

Worst part about the drones is that they will ramp up production. By the time the people are sick of wasting money on war, they pull them back and use the drones on the people. I am TOTALLY AGAINST UNMANNED assault devices. They're about as fair as an unmanned IED.

 

The cost of killing is life. A ten million dollar pilot is the risk you take on a fire mission.

 

It keeps the corporations from running rampant in war.

 

There MUST be a human on board and responsible for weapons of mass destruction. Would you want a remote controlled bomb running around? You need a pilot on board to take over when the computer goes to hell or the system gets hacked.

[CBR Shadow 53]

I have no problem with "remote controlled bombs running around". Electronics are always involved in any type of bombing. whether electronics are controlled by a person sitting in the airplane or a person sitting 10 miles away in a base shouldn't matter. Technology has gotten to the point where this is reliable and safe - I say use it! Wars are won with technology. Above Predator made some great points about how these are used which could definitely save lives.

[thebuns1 4,323]

I have no problem with "remote controlled bombs running around". Electronics are always involved in any type of bombing. whether electronics are controlled by a person sitting in the airplane or a person sitting 10 miles away in a base shouldn't matter. Technology has gotten to the point where this is reliable and safe - I say use it! Wars are won with technology. Above Predator made some great points about how these are used which could definitely save lives.

 

 

while i agree with most of your post, i disagree with the wars are won with technology portion. if that were the case, then germany should have won ww2. they were years ahead of us in tech. it wasnt until we got their scientists that we bombed japan. we are yet to go to war with a country that shares the same tech as we do. it may work well against hodge, but it remains to be tested in combat against another hi-tech military. imo, wars are won with tactics, balls, and boots on the ground. i feel that the US relies too heavily on air support and superiority. that could change drastically if we went at it with a much more tech advanced nation with much more determination and morale than afgans and iraqis. but this is just my opinion.

[Odd Man Out 1,283]

while i agree with most of your post, i disagree with the wars are won with technology portion. if that were the case, then germany should have won ww2. they were years ahead of us in tech. it wasnt until we got their scientists that we bombed japan.

 

Germany lost because of stupid decisions and being overpowered by men and materiel. Having advanced tech means nothing when your enemy is blasting you into the stoneage with 1000 bomber raids on the Western front and advancing with 3 million soldiers on the Eastern front...

 

The Manhatten project was started waaaay before we "collected" nazi scientists via operation Paperclip -- if you are writting about Robert Oppenheimer and Einstein, well they came willingly and operated as Americans so don't really see your point.

[thebuns1 4,323]

while i agree with most of your post, i disagree with the wars are won with technology portion. if that were the case, then germany should have won ww2. they were years ahead of us in tech. it wasnt until we got their scientists that we bombed japan.

 

 

The Manhatten project was started waaaay before we "collected" nazi scientists via operation Paperclip -- if you are writting about Robert Oppenheimer and Einstein, well they came willingly and operated as Americans so don't really see your point.

 

i know that. the germans started a similar program around the same time we did. what im trying to imply is that the manhattan project succeeded only after the war in europe came to an end. and when i said years ahead of us in tech, i wasnt refering to just the a-bomb. their weapons and equipment were better. they lacked the resources to produce them to a level that would have made an impact that late in the war.

 

but like i said. technology doesnt always mean victory.

[Odd Man Out 1,283]

when i said years ahead of us in tech, i wasnt refering to just the a-bomb. their weapons and equipment were better. they lacked the resources to produce them to a level that would have made an impact that late in the war.

 

"Better" is a relative term...The Tiger tank was an excellent machine BUT the greman penchant for intricacy and over development made for a tank that broke down at 30 mile intervals while the Sherman and crude T-34 could go for 100's. Sure it took 5 sherman's to 1 Tiger but what the hey, we had em. The Me-262 was a revolutionary jet fighter but the new tech Jumo engines were so squirrelly that they would flame out if the pilot pushed the throttles forward too fast. The Me-163 was the first Rocket fighter but if the two ingredients that fueled the engine ever came into contact outside the engine, the thing would explode. The engine on the Bf-109 fighter was built to such close tolerances that when certain parts go out on the 6 flyable examples left -- they are hosed. No one can manufacture replacement parts. Gotta love those Germans and their high tech...

[MT Predator 2,294]

imo, wars are won with tactics, balls, and boots on the ground.

Part of your Tactics include Air Superiority. You cannot own the ground your boots are on if you do not own the airspace. Fighting insurgents is another can of worms that boots on ground and balls alone cannot resolve. Every fighter looks like the next villager unless you catch him red handed with weapons, something these drones are good at doing. We are not fighting another uniformed military.

[MT Predator 2,294]

Worst part about the drones is that they will ramp up production. By the time the people are sick of wasting money on war, they pull them back and use the drones on the people. I am TOTALLY AGAINST UNMANNED assault devices. They're about as fair as an unmanned IED.

 

The cost of killing is life. A ten million dollar pilot is the risk you take on a fire mission.

 

It keeps the corporations from running rampant in war.

 

There MUST be a human on board and responsible for weapons of mass destruction. Would you want a remote controlled bomb running around? You need a pilot on board to take over when the computer goes to hell or the system gets hacked.

There is a human in control of the aircraft and weaponry, not Skynet. How can you compare fairness between a UAV and an IED? War isn't fucking fair, people die on both sides. A Hellfire fired from a Predator or Reaper is a precision guided weapon. An IED is far from that and takes out innocent civilians as well as the targeted troops. Maybe we should pull our UAVs back and start planting IEDs around Afghanistan to randomly blow people up to be fair.

We are using drones against people here in the States. They are flying ops on the Mexican border everyday, tracking illegals and smugglers. Maybe if we hung ordnance on them and used it, that shit would slow down a bit.

[thebuns1 4,323]

imo, wars are won with tactics, balls, and boots on the ground.

Part of your Tactics include Air Superiority. You cannot own the ground your boots are on if you do not own the airspace. Fighting insurgents is another can of worms that boots on ground and balls alone cannot resolve. Every fighter looks like the next villager unless you catch him red handed with weapons, something these drones are good at doing. We are not fighting another uniformed military.

 

fighting the insurgents wouldnt be that hard if we could do our jobs the way we need to too begin with. take the fucked up rules of engagement out of the element and we would have cleaned this mess up a long time ago. and yes part of my tactics do include air superiority. but not the primary portion.

[patriot 7,197]

Check this one out!

 

http://www.thalesgro...llance_Systems/

 

Edited September 30, 2011 by patriot