Covert Drone strikes For or Against

[jlcamero]

So I was watching Viewpoint on Current today and the topic of Obama utilizing drones even more so than Bush and whether these strikes are justified given that there is little 3rd party analysis(Mostly just CIA and USAF) on the Intel that earns a person a spot on a list as a possible terrorist and thus drone target. Personally I'm all for a synchronize as accurate as possible Hellfire missile being drop on unsuspecting terrorist's, but how do you ladies and gentleman of MOM-Champion feel?

[Kulanae]

Most drone strikes, contrary to public opinion, are not "given little 3rd party analysis". They are usually targets from multiple ground sources indicating a high propability that a valuable target will be at the location at a very specific time. This is local ground intel.

Personally I would rather see Ops teams on the ground taking out targets, but that is not always an option.

[cFortyfive]

Covert strikes on sovereign territory - yeah I am totally for it. Jk.

[Caiada]

Most drone strikes, contrary to public opinion, are not "given little 3rd party analysis". They are usually targets from multiple ground sources indicating a high propability that a valuable target will be at the location at a very specific time. This is local ground intel.

Personally I would rather see Ops teams on the ground taking out targets, but that is not always an option.

Pretty much what I was gonna say

Really, they're not just bombing whenever they hear a guy say 'I'm a terrorist' or whatever. They research this incredibly thoroughly. Are they wrong sometimes? Is the intel sometimes bad? Well, yeah, but hindsight's 20/20.

[Hif]

So everybody who said yes is okay with the Chinese using Covert Drones to strike US targets? And before people say only the US has drone technology please google and see what stage China is vis a vis the US. Jane's Defense Weekly has a few good pieces of news.

Drones blur the lines of extra-judicial executions and don't follow the Geneva Conventions. The various UN Rapporteurs have openly stated that the Covert Drones are illegal under current international law.

[undethknight]

So everybody who said yes is okay with the Chinese using Covert Drones to strike US targets? And before people say only the US has drone technology please google and see what stage China is vis a vis the US. Jane's Defense Weekly has a few good pieces of news.

Drones blur the lines of extra-judicial executions and don't follow the Geneva Conventions. The various UN Rapporteurs have openly stated that the Covert Drones are illegal under current international law.

what the fucck are you talking about? we arent terrorists

[PACOX]

So everybody who said yes is okay with the Chinese using Covert Drones to strike US targets? And before people say only the US has drone technology please google and see what stage China is vis a vis the US. Jane's Defense Weekly has a few good pieces of news.

Drones blur the lines of extra-judicial executions and don't follow the Geneva Conventions. The various UN Rapporteurs have openly stated that the Covert Drones are illegal under current international law.

I don't remember China being at war with the US.

[Callace]

I don't have a problem with them as long as the intel is good.

Seems to be a better way to combat terrorism than conventional warfare if nothing else.

[Hif]

what the fucck are you talking about? we arent terrorists

Yeah that is why a US drone was shot down over Iran. That actually under international law is a declaration of war by the US on Iran.

Pacox, with the US re-positioning the US fleet in the Pacific, striking trade and military deals with the countries in the South China Sea and the US top brass openly stating they will take military action in the South China Sea if they deem it necessary, many are just waiting for a cold war detente to start all over again. Hell the US has openly stated that they consider the Chinese their next biggest threat for the future.

[Jager]

The Chinese have been the US's biggest threat since the fall of the Berlin wall, they have a more military strength, their technology is fast catching up to that of the US (altho i believe the US has a few top secret surprises that aren't public knowledge) and they have a growing Economy allowing more investment in their technology and military. The US tho has one thing that china lacks, and that's real experience in fighting a war, China's military has no experience fighting anything other than protesters.

[Bakis]

A drone cant act retarded and burn the Quran, that alone seems like 1-0 to the Drone.

[Skroe]

Yeah that is why a US drone was shot down over Iran. That actually under international law is a declaration of war by the US on Iran.

Pacox, with the US re-positioning the US fleet in the Pacific, striking trade and military deals with the countries in the South China Sea and the US top brass openly stating they will take military action in the South China Sea if they deem it necessary, many are just waiting for a cold war detente to start all over again. Hell the US has openly stated that they consider the Chinese their next biggest threat for the future.

Really? Then what do you call a U-2 shot down over the Soviet Union in the mid 1960s? Terrorism too?

Countries spy on each other. A lot. Want to know the top 3 countries the US has to protect itself from espionage? In order, China, Russia, France, Germany, the United Kingdom. China wants our technology. Russia wants to know our defense intentions vis a vis their interests. France and Germany are industrial espionage for economic gain in order to increase competition in their industries versus ours. The United Kingdom is so they know they "inside scoop" of what we're saying behind closed doors (basically what son our minds).

The drone over Iran was spying. That same drone model has been used over North Korea, Pakistan Russia, and probably China. It was designed to be stealthy to spy and go where people don't want us. It good be a drone, it could be a U-2, or an SR-71 (if we still used them), or a spy satellite with extremely good resolution. Fact is, the drone is just a tool to execute an intent, which is to gather intelligence.

And you're right about China. We're in the process of boxing them in, then putting that box within another box, and so forth, so that if the Chinese think they break out of one box, they'll find themselves trapped in just another, bigger box. That's how you beat and contain China. They know it and we know it. You just keep limiting their options, make it so they can't move and do much besides keep their ships within 200 miles of their shore and be close allies with reprehensible regimes and dysfunctional countries that no one wants anything to do with (looking at you Sudan, Zimbabwe, Pakistan).

I mean they spend five years building this DF-21 carrier killer, and the US Navy comes up with a counter measure in a few months. They develop an anti-satellite weapon that apparently is a one off rocket, and we load some new software on a single Standard Missile-3, of which we have many thousands of, and do the same thing. They decide to invest heavily in a new class of attack submarines, we double production of the Virginia class attack submarine which is about two generations of technology more advanced. They roll out this new Stealth Fighter, we throw a new super-sensitive solid state radar into the large nosecone of the F-15C designed specifically to detect Stealth Fighters.

It's like every time they think they finally got a minor edge, it turns out, we already thought of a countermeasure.

That's why it isn't going to be detente. Detente came about because in the 60s and 70s the Atlantic Alliance and the Warsaw pact had a very close level of military, economic and strategic parity. We were essentially on the same level. By contrast we are so far ahead of China, who gets so much undeserved good free press because easily impressed opinion writers like their new highways and tall (uninhabited, poorly constructed) skyscrapers, that detente won't happen. Instead its going to be a quarter to a half a century of us mostly fucking with them, if only to provide ourselves with an impetus to keep investing in our armed forces as a strategic hedge. Will a major military conflict happen with China under almost any circumstance? Nope, not a chance. But that isn't going to stop us from keeping the dragon in a very carefully designed and maintained cage.

And you know what the best part is? The Chinese are going to help us do it. Because they're inexperienced and highly factional. Their generals run their military districts like fiefdoms. They gain promotion via bribes, connections, and politics. They defend their turf first and foremost, and then the People Liberation Army's wider privileges in Chinese society second. The Communist Party is third, and then the state. They can't help themselves. Their military leadership simply does not coordinate with their foreign ministry and vice versa... and they never will. So every time the Foreign Ministry uses the damn laugh-word "harmonious" to try to foster international friendship, without fail some Chinese General runs their mouth, causing 3 or 4 neighbors to run deeper into our arms, the garaunteer of their defense. Because they too rather China in a box, and certain factions of the Chinese government seem to want to confirm the worst of their fears.

It's going to be a very interesting century. The last time China was a superpower, the New World was not yet discovered and China's competition in Europe was fighting over rivers entitled to kings six hundred years prior. This time, the upstart wanna-be superpower faces a country rather good at slaying big, mean totalitarian dragons.

I wouldn't bet against us. So yeah, what you're saying. Exactly what is going to happen. It's going to be (and actually already is, according to leaked internal discussions) pretty awful and very frustrating... for China.

[Morsker]

I've yet to hear a real problem with using drones as weapons. Complaints seem to be 50% sensationalism, 50% indirect complaints at the country using them. The technology itself seems amazingly boring to me, at least in an ethical context. It's a weapon. It can be used to kill people. Some people decide how and when it gets used. Big deal.

[Skroe]

The Chinese have been the US's biggest threat since the fall of the Berlin wall, they have a more military strength, their technology is fast catching up to that of the US (altho i believe the US has a few top secret surprises that aren't public knowledge) and they have a growing Economy allowing more investment in their technology and military. The US tho has one thing that china lacks, and that's real experience in fighting a war, China's military has no experience fighting anything other than protesters.

Their military isn't nearly our strength. It isn't even close. Pure numbers are nothing. Most of their troops are for internal security and are poorly trained in general, and they aren't professional at all. You gain promotion in the PLA via bribes and connections. China has zero expeditionary capability and no Chinese servicemember has fired a shot in anger at a foreigner since 1979. Their technology is better than it was ten years about, but decades behind the United States in all the ways that matter. Furthermore they have no experience in maintaining production of such technology, using it, or joint operations across there services. Their two most advanced pieces of technology are a Stealth Fighter that uses thirty year old engines, isn't all that stealthy and has already had a counter measure developed against, and an anti-carrier ballistic missile they spent five years developing, but has been defended against after a few months of work.

They're entirely minor league compared to the US military. They may be operating at a higher level than they did when they were all-vintage Soviet hardware, but that's a very low baseline to start from in the first place. They're military is closer to the regime-enforcers-with-guns level you find in Syria or North Korea, than the fine tuned professional fighting force designed to destroy other militaries in maneuver warfare that the US has.


You're absolutely right about those technological secrets though. Let's not forget to kill the Osama bin Laden the US cooked up two models of stealth helicopter that weren't even supposed to exist yet, but apparently did and they were so comfortable with using, they used on a super-high profile, high risk mission. Or the X-37, the first maneuverable, payload-carrying space drone, which was designed to be in space for 220 days, but is up there doing god knows what for 13 months already, with no sign of stopping.

[Bakis]

Many see an issue of dehumanising the target cos of the distance to it, that a decision to fire is taken more lighty, kinda the same problematics invovled with fighter planes shooting from miles away.
That may be so but the cost of the ordnance is so high and not taken lightly that it counter any such possible aspect.

I am just happy as long as operations stick to Drones and Spec Ops, convetional soldiers have showed time and time again that they just fuck things up.

[Jager]

Their military isn't nearly our strength. It isn't even close. Pure numbers are nothing. Most of their troops are for internal security and are poorly trained in general, and they aren't professional at all. You gain promotion in the PLA via bribes and connections. China has zero expeditionary capability and no Chinese servicemember has fired a shot in anger at a foreigner since 1979. Their technology is better than it was ten years about, but decades behind the United States in all the ways that matter. Furthermore they have no experience in maintaining production of such technology, using it, or joint operations across there services. Their two most advanced pieces of technology are a Stealth Fighter that uses thirty year old engines, isn't all that stealthy and has already had a counter measure developed against, and an anti-carrier ballistic missile they spent five years developing, but has been defended against after a few months of work.

They're entirely minor league compared to the US military. They may be operating at a higher level than they did when they were all-vintage Soviet hardware, but that's a very low baseline to start from in the first place. They're military is closer to the regime-enforcers-with-guns level you find in Syria or North Korea, than the fine tuned professional fighting force designed to destroy other militaries in maneuver warfare that the US has.


You're absolutely right about those technological secrets though. Let's not forget to kill the Osama bin Laden the US cooked up two models of stealth helicopter that weren't even supposed to exist yet, but apparently did and they were so comfortable with using, they used on a super-high profile, high risk mission. Or the X-37, the first maneuverable, payload-carrying space drone, which was designed to be in space for 220 days, but is up there doing god knows what for 13 months already, with no sign of stopping.

When i mentioned military strength i was talking purely numbers. But as it stands, regardless of their lack of technology and experience, they remain the US's biggest threat, while Russia remains the EU's biggest threat. I don't see Russia beating the EU in a war neither China ever coming close to beating the US, but if either conflict ever occurred, it would do such extreme economic damage, that the entire world economy would likely go into depression.

That being said, i quite enjoy reading your post on the subject.

[Skroe]

I've yet to hear a real problem with using drones as weapons. Complaints seem to be 50% sensationalism, 50% indirect complaints at the country using them. The technology itself seems amazingly boring to me, at least in an ethical context. It's a weapon. It can be used to kill people. Some people decide how and when it gets used. Big deal.

I'll cut through the BS, because you picked up on it. Yes, people's ethical complaints are all BS. There is nothing legitimate about it.

What they really are mad about is that the US thought of a way to engage in military action that kills its enemies anywhere, any time, without putting a boot on the ground. If you put a boot on a ground to kill an enemy of the country, it crosses a certain political threshold. There is a risk to it, that acts as a inherent deterrent against engaging in such action (i.e. "What if the Navy Seal dies on this mission? What if he is dragged through the street? Would it be worth it?"). The people who have the biggest problem with drone warfare typically have a problem with US military action in general. They want to limit it via making the things this country does when it engages in military ever harder to do, via banning certain types of weapons (cluster bombs, land mines), practices (wide scale foreign basing, using white phosphorous), and technologies (drones, human terrain tech, cyberwarfare). Their thought process is, if tools X Y and Z are outlawed or morally frowned upon, the US will cease being able to engage in military action unless it is attacked first, thus (in their mind) bringing about world peace.

Drones are frustrating for them because now the President of the United States can order the death of any enemy of the country with near zero political fallout at home if something goes wrong, and near zero international outcry because it involves no men at risk. So the entire drone drama is them trying to stigmatize their use, because if they fail, the entire "master plan" if you can call it that doesn't work. It's something they never though of a decade ago. And now it undermines their entire worldview.

So don't be surprised that you have no ethical objections to drones. Most people don't. The only folks who do have a wider agenda. If it weren't drones -if they never existed - it would be something else, because in their world, elimination of drone warfare is just a means to an end. These people have already drafted up proposed international treaties to limit drone warfare and the spread of drone technology.

Joke is on them though. Six years ago, one in thirty US Aircraft were drone. Today it's one in three. Six years from now it is projected to be over 50%. And the next generation strategic bomber, the stealthy compliment to the B-2 and B-52 that will replace the B-1B, is going to be "optionally manned" for both nuclear deterrence missions and conventional missions. The Air Force is about to throw $60 billion and a decade of time into that effort. Do people really think Drone Warfare is going away? No. It isn't. It's going to get bigger. Much bigger.

[Twiddly]

I was under the impression that assassinations were technically illegal, but given that Obama has ordered several now, they must not be!

[obdigore]

I was under the impression that assassinations were technically illegal, but given that Obama has ordered several now, they must not be!

What is the difference between 'assassinations' and 'Killing a terrorist'? Does the terrorist have to be shooting at you to make it ok?

[Twiddly]

What is the difference between 'assassinations' and 'Killing a terrorist'? Does the terrorist have to be shooting at you to make it ok?

Going into another country and assassinating US citizens with no trial? Seems legit to me! Who needs a justice system when you can kill them from miles away? Oh, they just signed a law saying drones could be used domestically? I'm sure it will all be fine!