PDA

View Full Version : Future Gamers and the Bushco/Obamaco Doctrine.



RodSBT
12-18-2012, 11:23 AM
http://theintelhub.com/2012/12/17/drone-operator-asks-did-we-just-kill-a-kid-commander-tells-him-it-was-just-a-dog-with-2-legs/

"..When Bryant pressed a button in New Mexico, someone died on the other side of the world..."

Keith Wilson
12-18-2012, 11:54 AM
Drone warfare is a disturbing practice on many levels but one of the most troubling things about this is it allows people to be completely detached from the violence that they are participating in.This may be disturbing, but it's only one more step in a continuous development of military technology that's been going on for a very long time. Time was, if you wanted to kill an enemy, you had to walk right up and stick something sharp in him, or hit him with something heavy. This was messy, and the target might very well object, which could be hazardous to your health. Then people developed slings, and archery, so you could stand back a good long way and have a better chance of going home at the end of the day. Then firearms, and their ranges have been getting longer and longer for 500 years. IIRC, by the first World War they could lob an artillery shell over 50 miles. Then aircraft, of course, and long-range guided missiles. A drone firing missiles is nothing more than another step in the chain. It is, in fact, far more precise and less likely to kill people other than the intended targets than many previous techniques - say, artillery bombardment, or saturation bombing. It's just another weapon with advantages and disadvantages, and pretending that it's somehow special because it's controlled from a trailer in New Mexico rather than a cockpit 20,000 feet up or an artillery emplacement in the next valley over is nonsensical.

Now one can reasonably argue about the wisdom of tying to kill suspected terrorists with missiles fired from drones, about non-combatants killed by mistake, about the humanitarian and political pros and cons of any particular policy. I don't like the idea of killing children in Pakistan any better than you do. But arguing that the drones are something particularly bad makes absolutely no sense.

Chip-skiff
12-18-2012, 12:08 PM
Brief cultural analysis: Central to the mythology of righteous battle is the idea of being at risk of one's life: In Harm's Way. Even a bomber pilot raining napalm on villagers in reed huts might crash (as did John McCain) and suffer consequences.

But the drone killings lack that element of personal physical danger, so vital to maintaining the key myths and values of the military. Aside from tripping on the steps of the trailer, the risks are mostly psychological: to kill coldly, without the amelioration of personal danger, is not exactly the stuff of heroes.

Curtism
12-18-2012, 12:09 PM
Of course, drones don't kill people . . . people kill people. Or so we're told. :rolleyes:

Keith Wilson
12-18-2012, 12:33 PM
Central to the mythology of righteous battle is the idea of being at risk of one's life:And there's a very good reason it's mythology. Ever since warfare was invented, people have been working very hard on more effective ways of killing with less risk to themselves. This is just one more step.

George Patton, who had some experience in these matters, said, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

Flying Orca
12-18-2012, 02:16 PM
Wars have almost always been fought at a distance, using drones.

Until recenlty, those drones were humans who had little, if any, say in the matter. Today, those drones are sometimes machines.

+ eleventy billion.

Tom Montgomery
12-18-2012, 02:28 PM
The use of drones has evidently decimated Al Qaeda.

Just saying....

Tom Montgomery
12-18-2012, 02:34 PM
Make no mistake: All forms of warfare are inhumane.

As for non-combatants killed by mistake.... that is the result of all forms of warfare. That is why warfare should always be 1) a last resort, and 2) unquestionably justified as self-defense. That is why I denounce the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. And why justification of the US invasion of Afghanistan, overthrow of the Taliban government, and assault on Al Qaeda is debatable.

One must ask the question: Who bears the most responsiblity for the death of innocents? Nations striking at international/organized, criminal/terrorist, organizations where ever they reside? Or those nations who harbor and give aid and comfort to such organized criminal/terrorist organizations among their innocent population?

Osborne Russell
12-18-2012, 05:45 PM
Wars have almost always been fought at a distance, using drones.

Until recenlty, those drones were humans who had little, if any, say in the matter. Today, those drones are sometimes machines.

Thoreau said it.


The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well.

-- Henry David Thoreau, "Resistance To Civil Government" (1849).