Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Murphy's Law in Action Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why All The Fuss About UAVs
SYSOP    2/13/2013 5:39:02 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3
WarNerd       2/21/2013 2:06:32 PM
Also I specifically said we should cooperate with China and Russia (explicitly with respect to North Korea and Pakistan), not that we should stop trading/doing business with them. Although I did not previously state this, it so happens that I do consider most US government-sponsored foreign aid to be wasted and would stop it...but I do not oppose UN peacekeeping missions, NGO famine relief efforts, and the like. Perhaps you have difficulty in distinguishing between the Peace Corps (which I do NOT consider a wasteful program) and the Marine Corps but please do not project such confusion onto me. 
So we should have nothing to do with corrupt regimes, except when it is our benefit, is that what you are saying? How is this any different than what we do now? We don’t have dealings with those corrupt governments just for grins! And a quick glance at the history of the last 20+ years will show that you cannot expect to get much cooperation from either Russia or China without paying with a lot more political capitol than we can afford.
 
The UN is the only legitimate forum for international action? The UN is becoming more and more a sick joke. Governments refer something to the UN when they need an excuse to do nothing, or demand that an opponent go through the UN as a means to block action. The UN only deals in peacekeeping missions, not peacemaking which is someone else’s job, and even in that restricted area their record is abysmal, quite likely even negative. Their record of incompetence, corruption, and human rights abuses during those missions grows almost daily. Besides, the militants/terrorists object to the UN only slightly less than the US and allies. As for corrupt regimes, the UN exists to support them and keep them in power. How else can you explain things like the composition of the ‘United Nations Commission on Human Rights’ governance, and the fact that they kicked the US off for exposing it? It is inherent to the UNs design and structure.
 
Emergency and disaster relief? First in is almost always the military, especially the US Navy and Marines. NGOs arrive later, and the UN only when things have settled down to support the current regime to stay in power.
 
I have no problem distinguishing between the Peace Corp and the Marine Corp. Neither do the terrorists, the Peace Corp are the ones that don’t shoot back and make good hostages and kidnap-for-ransom victims. The Peace Corp does good work, as do many of the NGOs, but they are pulling out of the conflict areas for safety.
 
Quote    Reply

bhessel    Rules for Drones   3/19/2013 6:12:25 PM
Glad to see this comment page has been fixed (although we have ranged a bit afield).

Generally, I perceive the whole “war on terror” campaign to be morally baleful, fiscally ruinous, strategically counter-productive, and tactically dubious. Our only clear winners are the mangers and owners of the military-industrial complex—upon whom we lavish much too much money—and the USA’s losses in blood, treasure, moral standing, and strategic advantage far outweigh their gains and the concomitant short-term financial benefits. 

In particular, we should not be interfering in the internal affairs of other nations—which we are not reliably good at anyway—and aside from maintaining the capability to take out a particular bad actor in the event of a clear and present ticking time bomb, yes, we should leave these criminals to the local police. (It would have been bracing to require Pakistan to deal with the presence of Osama bin Laden in their own back yard.)

With reference to “destabilizing entire nations,” I would say that generally when that happens because of a mass movement such as the Arab Spring manifestations, it is more likely to be a healthy development for the country and when it happens because of a skillfully run terror campaign conducted by a small dedicated cadre such as Hezbollah (in Lebanon) or Al Qaeda (in Iraq), it is less likely to be healthy. Our ham-handed actions have engendered conditions favorable for both varieties of destabilization, but particularly so for the latter, unhealthy variety.

And getting back to drones, unlike some here I have no problem with the development AI/robot tech per se. The main problem as I see it is that the USA is flouting international law in our use of drones (not to mention causing ourselves more tsuris strategically than we are relieving ourselves of tactically…and, oh, yeah, behaving immorally). These are terrible precedents that will doubtless bite us in the ass once drone tech becomes ubiquitous. 

Here is a timely essay on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/opinion/global/remote-control-warfare-requires-rules.html" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/opinion/global/remote-control-warfare-requires-rules.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment533921809961834_549077111779637}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[9]">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/opinion/global/remote-control-warfare-requires-rules.html
 
Quote    Reply

bhessel    more on drones   3/26/2013 10:40:10 AM
Would not characterize all these examples as “cool” but they do illustrate the allure of the tech.

http://www.livescience.com/28136-uses-for-drones.html
 
Quote    Reply

bhessel       4/8/2013 12:50:55 PM
 
Quote    Reply

bhessel    Drones redux   4/18/2013 10:40:00 AM
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics