54 replies to this topic

[ccabal86]

 

So improve on your intelligence systems and the precision of your technology. Get the defense contractors and your intelligence agencies working on that. That's the solution here.

 

Except you were defending it as it is now. As it is now they are flawed and our country is doing acts of terrorism in the guise of killing terrorists. 

 

I am all for bombing terrorists, I just want to make sure it is only them that are getting bombed.

 

 

Any method should always be improved on by default, which had been the case. Remember in the nineties, much more people died in F15 strikes and the such, today's drone strikes are way preciser. We should further better these strike capabilities to reduce collateral damage, but that is exactly what's being done. The reason for that is that the US does not seek to harm civilians by policy and each unnecessary death results in significant blowback which nobody want to deal with.

 

In the mean time, stick to the best available method.

[DarkFox]

In the mean time, stick to the best available method.

 

 

Best method to do what exactly? Drones have only proven effective in killing people, not in preventing bad guys from hurting the west.

[ccabal86]

They did help in preventing them from rallying enough people to take back Afghanistan completely, that's gotta count for something...

[DarkFox]

I am arguing against the strikes against civilian areas, in a country we are not at war with. Double damning offense

[ccabal86]

All right, but that's what a policy change is for. It is undeniable that many high-profile targets were killed this way - Mullah Mansur being the latest.

[DarkFox]

Toss enough bombs or shoot enough bullets and eventually you will kill a high value target. 

[Canik]

I question how much killing high-profile targets even help. It seems we've killed a bunch of them but the situation in the middle-east hasn't exactly been improving. I mean, ISIS has been losing some territory but I think that'd happen either way from the airstrikes on ISIS military & FSA/Kurds on the ground.

If it did a lot to help, then okay maybe but if it's not doing much, why do it?

[Fermion]

Cause that's the only way of continuing the war without getting their own soldiers killed. Looks like killing civilians is alright because they were living close to suspected terrorists so they must be too, right?

[ccabal86]

Just because the drone program is not enough on its own to destroy an organization, it doesn't mean it doesn't have any effect at all. The frequent disruption of top leadership, loss of assets and personnel, etc, is still harming them, but is admittedly not enough on its own. Hence my call for significantly more commitment, which should be international, and not just the US alone. But since that isn't coming, what we have is still better than nothing.

Edited by ccabal86, 29 May 2016 - 07:13 PM.

[DarkFox]

If bombing was enough to win guerrilla wars then Vietnam would have been shorter and in our favor. More bombs were dropped during that war than any other and we had a significant presence on the ground. While I am sure the drones help, they by no means disrupt their chain of command. They could sit inside a cave and relay their orders with cell phones indefinitely and not fear the drones. 

 

So to bring back my original point, drone bombing villages isn't effective enough to justify doing it. Hell I personally wouldn't justify it even if every single bomb killed Bin Laden and 1 civilian. The cost is too high.

 

 

 

By the end of the war, 7 million tons of bombs had been dropped on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia - more than twice the amount of bombs dropped on Europe and Asia in World War II

 

Source

Secondary Source

[ccabal86]

If bombing was enough to win guerrilla wars then Vietnam would have been shorter and in our favor. More bombs were dropped during that war than any other and we had a significant presence on the ground. While I am sure the drones help, they by no means disrupt their chain of command. They could sit inside a cave and relay their orders with cell phones indefinitely and not fear the drones. 

 

So to bring back my original point, drone bombing villages isn't effective enough to justify doing it. Hell I personally wouldn't justify it even if every single bomb killed Bin Laden and 1 civilian. The cost is too high.

 

Well, they still have to leave from time to time, and they do. See Mullah Mansur, he was in a car with his driver. It's not just the top brass that's being hit, it's the mid-level guys too, you just don't hear it on the news that often.

 

Vietnam is just an example of how much technology has advanced and how bombings are now a viable tool (even if not enough on its own). Instead of bombing the jungle, you now can hit actual targets

 

As for civilian casualties, I accept that they are inevitable, even if undesired and should therefore be kept at a minimum. You on the other hand don't think even a single innocent's death is acceptable which is fine, but we're not going to find a middle ground here. But consider that there is no such a thing as a purely positive or negative outcome, and inaction too can have very negative consequences. A loss today may avert an even greater loss tomorrow. It's really the net outcome that matters, and if that's positive, it's worth taking.

 

EDIT: so much for the OP, it might not be salvageable at this point

Edited by ccabal86, 29 May 2016 - 07:43 PM.

[DarkFox]

Vietnam is just an example of how much technology has advanced and how bombings are now a viable tool (even if not enough on its own). Instead of bombing the jungle, you now can hit actual targets

 

 

In targeting yes, but the part that makes a bomb a bomb hasn't changed much since then. The reason why wars like this are so crappy is because conventional weapons like bombs don't work well, and there is no statistic that proves that it does. The reason why we do it and people justify it is because they think it works, and because it is the lazy way of war; Why commit troops when you can send a killbot that might kill the guy for ya?

[ccabal86]

 

Vietnam is just an example of how much technology has advanced and how bombings are now a viable tool (even if not enough on its own). Instead of bombing the jungle, you now can hit actual targets

 

 

In targeting yes, but the part that makes a bomb a bomb hasn't changed much since then. The reason why wars like this are so crappy is because conventional weapons like bombs don't work well, and there is no statistic that proves that it does. The reason why we do it and people justify it is because they think it works, and because it is the lazy way of war; Why commit troops when you can send a killbot that might kill the guy for ya?

 

 

This I agree with. Bombs do not substitute proper troops.

[Euphorical]

I'm not American but Bernie seems like the best candidate to bring US back on track. His policies kind of remind me of Singapore's govt where they also implement a whole bunch of socialist policies for the low income class.

[D34THBR1NG3R]

Too bad people don't really care about that anymore, almost half of Hillary's votes are from feminist groups, other than that most people vote for her just because they hate Donald. Personally I like Donald he just doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut, and he shouldn't kick out Muslims just stop refugees from coming in, and kick out the illegals that have contributed nothing since they've illegally entered America.