It's not really new, it's just new technology. It's the same search-and-destroy missions we had in Vietnam, but this time better informed (kind of) and without American soldiers present.
Yeah I've heard Vietnam strategies were also messed up and valued body count over minimizing civilian death. As an aside, I feel like it's harder to find info about it tho, since it was way easier to control where information winds up back then. I mean, I'm still saying it's all very different, but we definitely don't have a history of having a careful military touch. I mean... Hiroshima and Nagasaki.. god damn.
Everyone brings up the nukes, but forgets the many, many more people killed in firebombing. And in both cases, that's strategic bombing; it's not about body counts, its about destroying warfighting infrastructure, like factories, just during an age where air accuracy was so low that in order to hit said factories, you had to bomb everything in the same district.
I think we're looking at this from two different cognitive contexts.
Yes, pulling the trigger "in the heat of the moment" by the operator/soldier is reduced by the telepresence factor.
However, what I'm saying is that deciding to go after Habib, who your informant told you yesterday is planning to poison kindergarten drinking fountains this June in Rochester, NY, is WAY easier to plan and execute because the logistics of the mission are far, far less than a traditional incursion would have been before drones.
Also, multiple people can review the situation live as the call is being made. Recordings can be trivially reviewed to ensure that the "correct" decision was made.
Did you know the average drone has three operators and their firing controls are locked out by supervisors until approval comes from above in real time?
Compare drone strikes to previous CIA assassinations and not previous military action to see what difference I'm talking about. It's not a new method of war, it's a new method of assassination.
Did you know the average drone has three operators and their firing controls are locked out by supervisors until approval comes from above in real time?
What I'm getting at is that my issue isn't with the drone operators, it's with the entire culture and precedent of the drone program.
I've heard that drone "pilots" have higher rates of PTSD than frontline soldiers. I don't remember where I heard that from or if there's any truth to it, but I remember haring that! NPR maybe? It doesn't really make sense to me though.
Which is a culture that has existed since the dawn of air superiority.
Actually, scratch that. It's existed ever since Napoleon figured out the value of having more artillery than the other guy.
Flying a big-ass jet fighter/bomber with US flags emblazoned on the side, carpet bombing the shit out of some guy's hideout, and then dramatically flying back is a LITTLE heavier on the commitment side of things than flying an RC plane and dropping a charge before buzzing quietly back.
It's seriously troubling to me that people can't fathom this, but I take plenty of solace that I don't seem to be in a very small minority... :-)
The drone actually allows for more deliberation and precision though! You are literately arguing for the regression of an existing tactic and more collateral damage because the visual motifs of the delivery method squick you out!
I've heard that drone "pilots" have higher rates of PTSD than frontline soldiers. I don't remember where I heard that from or if there's any truth to it, but I remember haring that! NPR maybe? It doesn't really make sense to me though.
Sure it does. How would you feel if you went to work, killed a couple people, and then went home to play catch with your kid? That massive change of mindset really fucks with people. At least with people who are deployed, they go through a mental process where their entire surroundings change as the travel and are immersed in an entirely new culture.
The drone actually allows for more deliberation and precision though! You are literately arguing for the regression of an existing tactic and more collateral damage because the visual motifs of the delivery method squick you out!
I'm arguing that there would almost certainly be fewer overall attacks generally if executing the attacks wasn't so blindingly easy.
I've heard that drone "pilots" have higher rates of PTSD than frontline soldiers. I don't remember where I heard that from or if there's any truth to it, but I remember haring that! NPR maybe? It doesn't really make sense to me though.
Sure it does. How would you feel if you went to work, killed a couple people, and then went home to play catch with your kid? That massive change of mindset really fucks with people. At least with people who are deployed, they go through a mental process where their entire surroundings change as the travel and are immersed in an entirely new culture.
Air Force pilots, at least, pilot from Afghanistan, though mostly due to latency issues. So it might be something else. It might be worth it to check similar rates among bomber pilots and operators and see if something special is going on.
The drone actually allows for more deliberation and precision though! You are literately arguing for the regression of an existing tactic and more collateral damage because the visual motifs of the delivery method squick you out!
I'm arguing that there would almost certainly be fewer overall attacks generally if executing the attacks wasn't so blindingly easy.
The part of the process the drones make easier is not the launching of the attack, it's the confirmation of the target, as drones can loiter without pilot fatigue being an issue. Check out how many cruise missiles and jet fighter bombings we launched in the 1990s.
Air Force pilots, at least, pilot from Afghanistan, though mostly due to latency issues. So it might be something else. It might be worth it to check similar rates among bomber pilots and operators and see if something special is going on.
Actually, that's not true. The majority of drone pilots are stationed in the US.
Flying a big-ass jet fighter/bomber with US flags emblazoned on the side, carpet bombing the shit out of some guy's hideout, and then dramatically flying back is a LITTLE heavier on the commitment side of things than flying an RC plane and dropping a charge before buzzing quietly back.
Do you have any figures to back that up? From what I remember of interviews with bomber pilots from WWII most of them were pretty detached from what they were doing. Especially those working at higher altitudes.
The guys who are actually making the decision to attack aren't the ones in the air anyways. For them the difference between a manned fighter-bomber and an unmanned drone is bunch of numbers on a spread sheet.
Air Force pilots, at least, pilot from Afghanistan, though mostly due to latency issues. So it might be something else. It might be worth it to check similar rates among bomber pilots and operators and see if something special is going on.
Actually, that's not true. The majority of drone pilots are stationed in the US.
I think the majority of drones are non-Air Force though. I'm not sure who checks PTSD rates from CIA operators.
Flying a big-ass jet fighter/bomber with US flags emblazoned on the side, carpet bombing the shit out of some guy's hideout, and then dramatically flying back is a LITTLE heavier on the commitment side of things than flying an RC plane and dropping a charge before buzzing quietly back.
Do you have any figures to back that up? From what I remember of interviews with bomber pilots from WWII most of them were pretty detached from what they were doing. Especially those working at higher altitudes.
The guys who are actually making the decision to attack aren't the ones in the air anyways. For them the difference between a manned fighter-bomber and an unmanned drone is bunch of numbers on a spread sheet.
The guys who dropped the nukes were anything but emotionally or morally detached. They felt terrible before, during, and after.
Most of your arguments are founded on the implicit assertion that any of these attacks make the US safer. Do they make the US safer? Or do we pretty much just kill crackpots with delusions of grandeur who had a miniscule chance of ever executing a successful attack in the first place, at the cost of radicalizing many hundreds more each time we do this..?
Flying a big-ass jet fighter/bomber with US flags emblazoned on the side, carpet bombing the shit out of some guy's hideout, and then dramatically flying back is a LITTLE heavier on the commitment side of things than flying an RC plane and dropping a charge before buzzing quietly back.
Do you have any figures to back that up? From what I remember of interviews with bomber pilots from WWII most of them were pretty detached from what they were doing. Especially those working at higher altitudes.
The guys who are actually making the decision to attack aren't the ones in the air anyways. For them the difference between a manned fighter-bomber and an unmanned drone is bunch of numbers on a spread sheet.
The guys who dropped the nukes were anything but emotionally or morally detached. They felt terrible before, during, and after.
That seems to be a bit of an outlier. Do you have anything more representative? Say from one of the hundreds of daily raids flown as a matter of routine over Europe?
Personally I doubt there is a significant amount of difference between the detachment of flipping a switch in a bomb bay 50,000 feet up and flipping a switch in a tent 50 miles away.
Flying a big-ass jet fighter/bomber with US flags emblazoned on the side, carpet bombing the shit out of some guy's hideout, and then dramatically flying back is a LITTLE heavier on the commitment side of things than flying an RC plane and dropping a charge before buzzing quietly back.
Do you have any figures to back that up? From what I remember of interviews with bomber pilots from WWII most of them were pretty detached from what they were doing. Especially those working at higher altitudes.
The guys who are actually making the decision to attack aren't the ones in the air anyways. For them the difference between a manned fighter-bomber and an unmanned drone is bunch of numbers on a spread sheet.
The guys who dropped the nukes were anything but emotionally or morally detached. They felt terrible before, during, and after.
That seems to be a bit of an outlier. Do you have anything more representative? Say from one of the hundreds of daily raids flown as a matter of routine over Europe?
Personally I doubt there is a significant amount of difference between the detachment of flipping a switch in a bomb bay 50,000 feet up and flipping a switch in a tent 50 miles away.
Well I've lost my interest in this argument for today mostly but let's pick the nit that drone operators stationed in Nevada or wherever are a bit more than 50 miles away. They're not gonna hear the boom and they certainly aren't going to be subject to any return fire.
Flying a big-ass jet fighter/bomber with US flags emblazoned on the side, carpet bombing the shit out of some guy's hideout, and then dramatically flying back is a LITTLE heavier on the commitment side of things than flying an RC plane and dropping a charge before buzzing quietly back.
Do you have any figures to back that up? From what I remember of interviews with bomber pilots from WWII most of them were pretty detached from what they were doing. Especially those working at higher altitudes.
The guys who are actually making the decision to attack aren't the ones in the air anyways. For them the difference between a manned fighter-bomber and an unmanned drone is bunch of numbers on a spread sheet.
The guys who dropped the nukes were anything but emotionally or morally detached. They felt terrible before, during, and after.
That seems to be a bit of an outlier. Do you have anything more representative? Say from one of the hundreds of daily raids flown as a matter of routine over Europe?
Personally I doubt there is a significant amount of difference between the detachment of flipping a switch in a bomb bay 50,000 feet up and flipping a switch in a tent 50 miles away.
Well I've lost my interest in this argument for today mostly but let's pick the nit that drone operators stationed in Nevada or wherever are a bit more than 50 miles away. They're not gonna hear the boom and they certainly aren't going to be subject to any return fire.
I'll agree that this is getting tiresome and I don't have any way to research this in any more detail at the moment. I'll leave you with the note that the folks being targeted don't have the capabilities to take down even middle altitude aircraft so the pilots wouldn't be taking any fire anyhow.
Well I've lost my interest in this argument for today mostly but let's pick the nit that drone operators stationed in Nevada or wherever are a bit more than 50 miles away. They're not gonna hear the boom and they certainly aren't going to be subject to any return fire.
At 50 miles, the detonation of a hellfire missile isn't going to be terribly noticeable. You might hear it a little, a few seconds after it happens, but it's it's not like you're covering your ears and feeling the hot wind on your face. As for return fire, anyone left is gonna have a fucking long 49 mile hike before they're even remotely within small arms range. They could use artillery, but they'd still have to hike it out - they simply don't have the kind of big, heavy hitters with that kind of range in any sort of decent numbers, if at all.
I don't get why people focus their criticism on drones when the core problem is US foreign policy since the beginning of the Cold War.
probably because it smacks of the poem The Modern Traveller:
Blood thought he knew the native mind; He said you must be firm, but kind. A mutiny resulted. I shall never forget the way That Blood stood upon this awful day Preserved us all from death. He stood upon a little mound Cast his lethargic eyes around, And said beneath his breath: 'Whatever happens, we have got The Maxim Gun, and they have not.'
The Maxim Gun was a big part of why the British Empire was able to roll into which ever "savage" country they pleased and take over. Lets also not forget that the Maxim Gun was considered a marvellous tool until WWI when it was hordes of "civilized" white men getting mowed down on either sides by machine gun fire.
When war turns into the slaughter of one side from the relatively safe position of the other, (regardless of the psychic toll those soldiers pay,) for the sake of the victor's "interests" it makes it really hard to imagine it actually being a noble struggle.
The primary technological issues that I've read about with drones are limited field of view, imaging resolution, and data stream stability. These are all improving rapidly, but they are considerations.
I find it oddly appropriate that Dronebama has a Nobel Prize. Honoring the philanthropist by continuing the fine tradition of blowing things up.
The primary technological issues that I've read about with drones are limited field of view, imaging resolution, and data stream stability. These are all improving rapidly, but they are considerations.
I find it oddly appropriate that Dronebama has a Nobel Prize. Honoring the philanthropist by continuing the fine tradition of blowing things up.
The Nobel Peace prize is the most BS of all the Nobel prizes. Unfortunately, because it's often politically motivated BS, it's started to tarnish the rep of the more legitimate ones in the eyes of those who don't know better.
Comments
Yes, pulling the trigger "in the heat of the moment" by the operator/soldier is reduced by the telepresence factor.
However, what I'm saying is that deciding to go after Habib, who your informant told you yesterday is planning to poison kindergarten drinking fountains this June in Rochester, NY, is WAY easier to plan and execute because the logistics of the mission are far, far less than a traditional incursion would have been before drones. Yes, by everybody else in the Star Chamber.
Actually, scratch that. It's existed ever since Napoleon figured out the value of having more artillery than the other guy.
It's seriously troubling to me that people can't fathom this, but I take plenty of solace that I don't seem to be in a very small minority... :-)
The guys who are actually making the decision to attack aren't the ones in the air anyways. For them the difference between a manned fighter-bomber and an unmanned drone is bunch of numbers on a spread sheet.
Personally I doubt there is a significant amount of difference between the detachment of flipping a switch in a bomb bay 50,000 feet up and flipping a switch in a tent 50 miles away.
Blood thought he knew the native mind;
He said you must be firm, but kind.
A mutiny resulted.
I shall never forget the way
That Blood stood upon this awful day
Preserved us all from death.
He stood upon a little mound
Cast his lethargic eyes around,
And said beneath his breath:
'Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim Gun, and they have not.'
The Maxim Gun was a big part of why the British Empire was able to roll into which ever "savage" country they pleased and take over. Lets also not forget that the Maxim Gun was considered a marvellous tool until WWI when it was hordes of "civilized" white men getting mowed down on either sides by machine gun fire.
When war turns into the slaughter of one side from the relatively safe position of the other, (regardless of the psychic toll those soldiers pay,) for the sake of the victor's "interests" it makes it really hard to imagine it actually being a noble struggle.
I find it oddly appropriate that Dronebama has a Nobel Prize. Honoring the philanthropist by continuing the fine tradition of blowing things up.