The Drone Program

[sambino510]

One of the most controversial aspects of President Obama's time in office has been his increased usage of un-manned drones in our War On Terror. Supporters of the program say that the attacks have completely destroyed the terrorist organizations' infrastructure, while critics say the cost is in civilian deaths and property damage, as well as the infringement on another country's sovereignty, is too high.

Just like every other sort of policy against another country, we must view it from the victim's perspective. Maybe France tomorrow could tell us, "Hey there's an international terrorist hiding out in Queens, New York, and we don't have the means to bring him in but he's a huge threat to French national security." The U.S. government could tell them that they don't have the ability to bring him in either, so a few days later an old lady is walking out of her house and a French rocket annihilates the house next door, killing her and any other nearby civilians and their homes. The U.S. gets angry at France for violating their airspace and overall sovereignty, but France said it had to be done in order to protect French interests.

This is of course an extreme example, and completely hypothetical, but it isn't that different from the current relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan, or the U.S. and Yemen. We hear of a terrorist leader hiding out in a rural village (though we certainly do a very considerable amount of research and intelligence gathering), gain the proper approval, and destroy him and anyone nearby. Personally, I don't see why we can't apply the same laws in our policy-making, drones or otherwise, as we apply to our American citizens. That is, things like "innocent until proven guilty", or just general due process. This is the same excuse being used to detain people at Guantanamo Bay, the reasoning that they're "too dangerous to be let loose but too hard to prosecute to put to trial". Does this statement have any basis in domestic or international law? Can we really detain people of the Arab world indefinitely, "just in case"?

Another aspect of the drone program is the ethics. Our military already holds a huge advantage over our foe technologically, intellectually, and so on. Now, we have drone pilots in air-conditioned hangars essentially sending off rockets like it's some video game, with no danger to their personal lives whatsoever. Not even just ethics, but how about honor? Maybe that's a bit of an old-school ideal for the military, but why not fight our enemies face to face? Even if they would not show us the honor or respect I'm talking about, I think if we are going to fight a war we should do it "fairly", if there is such a thing.

Finally, there is the logic behind it. I don't know about you, but I think that if I was a villager in rural Yemen, and I was on the fence about whether or not to join a group fighting the U.S. military, a couple missiles landing on my neighbor's houses might convince me to join the fight. It seems to me that as we kill our enemies, they more often become martyrs for a cause, and thus are immediately replaced by more young men eager to defend their homeland from foreign invasion.

The drone program as a whole is certainly an effective one, in that it has torn to shreds the Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership. However, the moral, lawful, and ethical repercussions may not be worth the reward. The only way to combat the training grounds of these organizations for the long-term is with infrastructural, economic improvements, not sending Hellfire missiles down whenever we're feeling a bit jumpy. Our military can't continue to destroy the property of another country and then say "you're welcome".

 

[Mad Scientist]

The drone program as a whole is certainly an effective one, in that it has torn to shreds the Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership.

That makes no sense because the US Gov't backs Al Qaida in the Middle East AND the Taliban had almost eliminated the Heroin Trade in Afghanistan until the US showed up, now it's 90% of the worlds trade.

You also failed to link to where you stole this propaganda piece from.

 

[sambino510]

The drone program as a whole is certainly an effective one, in that it has torn to shreds the Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership.

That makes no sense because the US Gov't backs Al Qaida in the Middle East AND the Taliban had almost eliminated the Heroin Trade in Afghanistan until the US showed up, now it's 90% of the worlds trade.

You also failed to link to where you stole this propaganda piece from.

I don't know what "propaganda piece" you are referring to, I was simply stating my own personal views. Whatever credit I gave to the U.S. government for destroying the leaders of terrorist organizations was simply an attempt to give them SOME credit. In reality, I think the drone program, as well as our military operations as a whole, are almost completely useless in the long-term.

I don't know much about the Heroin trade in Afghanistan. It's always been presented to me as supported by the Taliban, but if you could provide me information that the Taliban are against drugs I'd be greatly interested.

I'm not sure sure the U.S. government necessarily "supports" Al Qaeda at this particular time, but we have supported aspects of their leadership like Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden in the past, particularly in the 80s against the Soviet Union. Though it's certainly possible there are a number of different under the table dealings going on, who knows?

But no, I didn't "steal" anything. This is my writing, and the baseless accusations have no place in a forum for civil debate.

 

[Auteur]

It is hard to dispense justice from the basis of a jiggling video image taken from 20,000 feet. The US has has not only not learned the lessons of history, but it is painting itself into a corner, by insisting that it is at war, in the classic sense, although it is not. It is facing criminals, extremists, and other non-state actors, not national governments. The big mistake made, IMO, was in not enlisting the cooperation of the international community after 9/11, when virtually all were onside. Instead, the administration at the time used the event to launch an imperial adventure in the Middle East, one that is continuing to have fallout for the US, and the world.

At their root, these are police issues, not military ones. And that is why the drone program is so controversial- it is using a blunt instrument where a more accurate one is required. When we look at history, a military only approach has rarely- if ever- been successful in defeating an underground/revoluntionary movement. In the end, some sort of negociation ends up taking place, just as it is now in Afghanistan, as the US and NATO try and come to terms with the Taliban, in order to effect a graceful exit from that country. How much more positive it would have been to talk first. Especially for the thousands killed in the last decade.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

One of the most controversial aspects of President Obama's time in office has been his increased usage of un-manned drones in our War On Terror. Supporters of the program say that the attacks have completely destroyed the terrorist organizations' infrastructure, while critics say the cost is in civilian deaths and property damage, as well as the infringement on another country's sovereignty, is too high.

Just like every other sort of policy against another country, we must view it from the victim's perspective. Maybe France tomorrow could tell us, "Hey there's an international terrorist hiding out in Queens, New York, and we don't have the means to bring him in but he's a huge threat to French national security." The U.S. government could tell them that they don't have the ability to bring him in either, so a few days later an old lady is walking out of her house and a French rocket annihilates the house next door, killing her and any other nearby civilians and their homes. The U.S. gets angry at France for violating their airspace and overall sovereignty, but France said it had to be done in order to protect French interests.

This is of course an extreme example, and completely hypothetical, but it isn't that different from the current relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan, or the U.S. and Yemen. We hear of a terrorist leader hiding out in a rural village (though we certainly do a very considerable amount of research and intelligence gathering), gain the proper approval, and destroy him and anyone nearby. Personally, I don't see why we can't apply the same laws in our policy-making, drones or otherwise, as we apply to our American citizens. That is, things like "innocent until proven guilty", or just general due process. This is the same excuse being used to detain people at Guantanamo Bay, the reasoning that they're "too dangerous to be let loose but too hard to prosecute to put to trial". Does this statement have any basis in domestic or international law? Can we really detain people of the Arab world indefinitely, "just in case"?

Another aspect of the drone program is the ethics. Our military already holds a huge advantage over our foe technologically, intellectually, and so on. Now, we have drone pilots in air-conditioned hangars essentially sending off rockets like it's some video game, with no danger to their personal lives whatsoever. Not even just ethics, but how about honor? Maybe that's a bit of an old-school ideal for the military, but why not fight our enemies face to face? Even if they would not show us the honor or respect I'm talking about, I think if we are going to fight a war we should do it "fairly", if there is such a thing.

Finally, there is the logic behind it. I don't know about you, but I think that if I was a villager in rural Yemen, and I was on the fence about whether or not to join a group fighting the U.S. military, a couple missiles landing on my neighbor's houses might convince me to join the fight. It seems to me that as we kill our enemies, they more often become martyrs for a cause, and thus are immediately replaced by more young men eager to defend their homeland from foreign invasion.

The drone program as a whole is certainly an effective one, in that it has torn to shreds the Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership. However, the moral, lawful, and ethical repercussions may not be worth the reward. The only way to combat the training grounds of these organizations for the long-term is with infrastructural, economic improvements, not sending Hellfire missiles down whenever we're feeling a bit jumpy. Our military can't continue to destroy the property of another country and then say "you're welcome".

If a given administration were to end the use of drones and address “infrastructural, economic improvements” and another 9/11 attack occurred killing 3000 or more Americans…

 

[sambino510]

One of the most controversial aspects of President Obama's time in office has been his increased usage of un-manned drones in our War On Terror. Supporters of the program say that the attacks have completely destroyed the terrorist organizations' infrastructure, while critics say the cost is in civilian deaths and property damage, as well as the infringement on another country's sovereignty, is too high.

Just like every other sort of policy against another country, we must view it from the victim's perspective. Maybe France tomorrow could tell us, "Hey there's an international terrorist hiding out in Queens, New York, and we don't have the means to bring him in but he's a huge threat to French national security." The U.S. government could tell them that they don't have the ability to bring him in either, so a few days later an old lady is walking out of her house and a French rocket annihilates the house next door, killing her and any other nearby civilians and their homes. The U.S. gets angry at France for violating their airspace and overall sovereignty, but France said it had to be done in order to protect French interests.

This is of course an extreme example, and completely hypothetical, but it isn't that different from the current relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan, or the U.S. and Yemen. We hear of a terrorist leader hiding out in a rural village (though we certainly do a very considerable amount of research and intelligence gathering), gain the proper approval, and destroy him and anyone nearby. Personally, I don't see why we can't apply the same laws in our policy-making, drones or otherwise, as we apply to our American citizens. That is, things like "innocent until proven guilty", or just general due process. This is the same excuse being used to detain people at Guantanamo Bay, the reasoning that they're "too dangerous to be let loose but too hard to prosecute to put to trial". Does this statement have any basis in domestic or international law? Can we really detain people of the Arab world indefinitely, "just in case"?

Another aspect of the drone program is the ethics. Our military already holds a huge advantage over our foe technologically, intellectually, and so on. Now, we have drone pilots in air-conditioned hangars essentially sending off rockets like it's some video game, with no danger to their personal lives whatsoever. Not even just ethics, but how about honor? Maybe that's a bit of an old-school ideal for the military, but why not fight our enemies face to face? Even if they would not show us the honor or respect I'm talking about, I think if we are going to fight a war we should do it "fairly", if there is such a thing.

Finally, there is the logic behind it. I don't know about you, but I think that if I was a villager in rural Yemen, and I was on the fence about whether or not to join a group fighting the U.S. military, a couple missiles landing on my neighbor's houses might convince me to join the fight. It seems to me that as we kill our enemies, they more often become martyrs for a cause, and thus are immediately replaced by more young men eager to defend their homeland from foreign invasion.

The drone program as a whole is certainly an effective one, in that it has torn to shreds the Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership. However, the moral, lawful, and ethical repercussions may not be worth the reward. The only way to combat the training grounds of these organizations for the long-term is with infrastructural, economic improvements, not sending Hellfire missiles down whenever we're feeling a bit jumpy. Our military can't continue to destroy the property of another country and then say "you're welcome".

If a given administration were to end the use of drones and address “infrastructural, economic improvements” and another 9/11 attack occurred killing 3000 or more Americans…

If it did, then so what? Is that any worse than if we use a drone program and then another 9/11 attack happens? At least if we work towards economic improvements then we'd know we were on the right side of history, one that doesn't include blowing up villages in order to solve a very complex problem.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

One of the most controversial aspects of President Obama's time in office has been his increased usage of un-manned drones in our War On Terror. Supporters of the program say that the attacks have completely destroyed the terrorist organizations' infrastructure, while critics say the cost is in civilian deaths and property damage, as well as the infringement on another country's sovereignty, is too high.

Just like every other sort of policy against another country, we must view it from the victim's perspective. Maybe France tomorrow could tell us, "Hey there's an international terrorist hiding out in Queens, New York, and we don't have the means to bring him in but he's a huge threat to French national security." The U.S. government could tell them that they don't have the ability to bring him in either, so a few days later an old lady is walking out of her house and a French rocket annihilates the house next door, killing her and any other nearby civilians and their homes. The U.S. gets angry at France for violating their airspace and overall sovereignty, but France said it had to be done in order to protect French interests.

This is of course an extreme example, and completely hypothetical, but it isn't that different from the current relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan, or the U.S. and Yemen. We hear of a terrorist leader hiding out in a rural village (though we certainly do a very considerable amount of research and intelligence gathering), gain the proper approval, and destroy him and anyone nearby. Personally, I don't see why we can't apply the same laws in our policy-making, drones or otherwise, as we apply to our American citizens. That is, things like "innocent until proven guilty", or just general due process. This is the same excuse being used to detain people at Guantanamo Bay, the reasoning that they're "too dangerous to be let loose but too hard to prosecute to put to trial". Does this statement have any basis in domestic or international law? Can we really detain people of the Arab world indefinitely, "just in case"?

Another aspect of the drone program is the ethics. Our military already holds a huge advantage over our foe technologically, intellectually, and so on. Now, we have drone pilots in air-conditioned hangars essentially sending off rockets like it's some video game, with no danger to their personal lives whatsoever. Not even just ethics, but how about honor? Maybe that's a bit of an old-school ideal for the military, but why not fight our enemies face to face? Even if they would not show us the honor or respect I'm talking about, I think if we are going to fight a war we should do it "fairly", if there is such a thing.

Finally, there is the logic behind it. I don't know about you, but I think that if I was a villager in rural Yemen, and I was on the fence about whether or not to join a group fighting the U.S. military, a couple missiles landing on my neighbor's houses might convince me to join the fight. It seems to me that as we kill our enemies, they more often become martyrs for a cause, and thus are immediately replaced by more young men eager to defend their homeland from foreign invasion.

The drone program as a whole is certainly an effective one, in that it has torn to shreds the Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership. However, the moral, lawful, and ethical repercussions may not be worth the reward. The only way to combat the training grounds of these organizations for the long-term is with infrastructural, economic improvements, not sending Hellfire missiles down whenever we're feeling a bit jumpy. Our military can't continue to destroy the property of another country and then say "you're welcome".

If a given administration were to end the use of drones and address “infrastructural, economic improvements” and another 9/11 attack occurred killing 3000 or more Americans…

If it did, then so what? Is that any worse than if we use a drone program and then another 9/11 attack happens? At least if we work towards economic improvements then we'd know we were on the right side of history, one that doesn't include blowing up villages in order to solve a very complex problem.

You don’t understand.

What do you think would happen to that president, politically, particularly if he were running for reelection?

What do you think his chances would be? Do you think any president in his right mind would risk such a thing?

Stop being so naïve.

 

[sambino510]

It is hard to dispense justice from the basis of a jiggling video image taken from 20,000 feet. The US has has not only not learned the lessons of history, but it is painting itself into a corner, by insisting that it is at war, in the classic sense, although it is not. It is facing criminals, extremists, and other non-state actors, not national governments. The big mistake made, IMO, was in not enlisting the cooperation of the international community after 9/11, when virtually all were onside. Instead, the administration at the time used the event to launch an imperial adventure in the Middle East, one that is continuing to have fallout for the US, and the world.

At their root, these are police issues, not military ones. And that is why the drone program is so controversial- it is using a blunt instrument where a more accurate one is required. When we look at history, a military only approach has rarely- if ever- been successful in defeating an underground/revoluntionary movement. In the end, some sort of negociation ends up taking place, just as it is now in Afghanistan, as the US and NATO try and come to terms with the Taliban, in order to effect a graceful exit from that country. How much more positive it would have been to talk first. Especially for the thousands killed in the last decade.

It just seems insanely unethical to me for people to be killed in a sort of video-game fashion, with a joystick and a computer screen. I can't fathom how the American government actually feels it is winning the hearts and minds of Pakistanis or Yemenis by dropping bombs in their neighborhood in order to fight crime. If someone shot a missile into my hometown of Oakland in order to stop gang violence, I'm not sure the citizens of Oakland would put up with that. Seems a bit excessive.

I agree that the key to fighting these low-level militia groups is through grass roots campaigns in the relevant countries, and cooperation between governments. There has to be ideological, cultural, and social resistance to the more extreme groups. It has to involve the Pakistanis or Afghanis and Yemenis directly, not just be a unilateral fight performed by the U.S. military.

Also, killing American citizens with missiles from across the world, whether they are extremists or not, seems questionable as well.

 

[sambino510]

If a given administration were to end the use of drones and address “infrastructural, economic improvements” and another 9/11 attack occurred killing 3000 or more Americans…

If it did, then so what? Is that any worse than if we use a drone program and then another 9/11 attack happens? At least if we work towards economic improvements then we'd know we were on the right side of history, one that doesn't include blowing up villages in order to solve a very complex problem.

You don’t understand.

What do you think would happen to that president, politically, particularly if he were running for reelection?

What do you think his chances would be? Do you think any president in his right mind would risk such a thing?

Stop being so naïve.

Sorry, let me correct myself. I understand perfectly well that, realistically, no president could have done this. Nonetheless, I still think it would have been better in the long-run. I agree with you though that Bush would have likely been impeached if he hadn't done anything after 9/11. Forgive me if I feel doing the right thing is more important than Bush or Obama's re-election probability.

Don't so quickly assume my naivety; it's difficult to present my full-fledged views in text on a message board. I would appreciate if you simply state your disagreements plainly and wait for me to clarify my opinions.

 

[MikeK]

If a given administration were to end the use of drones and address “infrastructural, economic improvements” and another 9/11 attack occurred killing 3000 or more Americans…

The way around that is to present all the facts and considerations of a given situation to the public and leave the decision up for referendum. In view of the outcomes of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, could we do any worse?

Obviously government is not competent to decide the best course in these war or peace conflicts. We have traditionally presumed it to be and in each case the outcome has ranged from bad to disastrous.

We should not have intervened in Korea or Vietnam and we should not have aided Kuwait, or invaded Iraq, or entered Afghanistan. Our government seems inclined to deploy our military whenever an opportunity presents itself.

 

[sambino510]

If a given administration were to end the use of drones and address “infrastructural, economic improvements” and another 9/11 attack occurred killing 3000 or more Americans…

The way around that is to present all the facts and considerations of a given situation to the public and leave the decision up for referendum. In view of the outcomes of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, could we do any worse?

Obviously government is not competent to decide the best course in these war or peace conflicts. We have traditionally presumed it to be and in each case the outcome has ranged from bad to disastrous.

We should not have intervened in Korea or Vietnam and we should not have aided Kuwait, or invaded Iraq, or entered Afghanistan. Our government seems inclined to deploy our military whenever an opportunity presents itself.

In order to address the other poster's concerns that a president could never refuse to take revenge against our enemies without public outrage, let me say this. I see no reason why decisions by the U.S. government to go to war can't be put up to a vote. That is, different groups can present facts and information about a subject to the public and then every American citizen can vote to go to war or not go to war, or get involved in a conflict or not. I'm not sure how realistic that is, but I see no reason why a democratic nation can't vote on more than just government officials to think for us. Maybe their role is to lead and ours is to follow; I don't know.

I agree with your opinion of non-intervention though. It is often difficult to view suffering in the world and not do anything about it, but the U.S. does it all the time so I don't see why these various conflicts were any different, other than we had other political interests in danger and not just human life. These conflicts must resolve themselves, internally, and not be influenced by an outside nation like the U.S. There have been more than enough countries which have overcome oppression without American aid, and they are the true victors.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If it did, then so what? Is that any worse than if we use a drone program and then another 9/11 attack happens? At least if we work towards economic improvements then we'd know we were on the right side of history, one that doesn't include blowing up villages in order to solve a very complex problem.

You don’t understand.

What do you think would happen to that president, politically, particularly if he were running for reelection?

What do you think his chances would be? Do you think any president in his right mind would risk such a thing?

Stop being so naïve.

Sorry, let me correct myself. I understand perfectly well that, realistically, no president could have done this. Nonetheless, I still think it would have been better in the long-run. I agree with you though that Bush would have likely been impeached if he hadn't done anything after 9/11. Forgive me if I feel doing the right thing is more important than Bush or Obama's re-election probability.

Don't so quickly assume my naivety; it's difficult to present my full-fledged views in text on a message board. I would appreciate if you simply state your disagreements plainly and wait for me to clarify my opinions.

I do agree with you, you’re of course correct, that’s not the point.

We’d also likely agree that children shouldn’t die of cancer – but neither that nor an end to the drone program is going to happen.

 

[sambino510]

You don’t understand.

What do you think would happen to that president, politically, particularly if he were running for reelection?

What do you think his chances would be? Do you think any president in his right mind would risk such a thing?

Stop being so naïve.

Sorry, let me correct myself. I understand perfectly well that, realistically, no president could have done this. Nonetheless, I still think it would have been better in the long-run. I agree with you though that Bush would have likely been impeached if he hadn't done anything after 9/11. Forgive me if I feel doing the right thing is more important than Bush or Obama's re-election probability.

Don't so quickly assume my naivety; it's difficult to present my full-fledged views in text on a message board. I would appreciate if you simply state your disagreements plainly and wait for me to clarify my opinions.

I do agree with you, you’re of course correct, that’s not the point.

We’d also likely agree that children shouldn’t die of cancer – but neither that nor an end to the drone program is going to happen.

Well I'm certainly glad we agree, and maybe I'm an unrealistic idealist but I'm not going to take that as a reason to change my views. The great changes we've made in the world in the past century, and there have been great changes, were not made by accepting the status quo, or accepting change as an impossibility. Even if my opinions do not translate to presidential policy, I think they're still worth discussing.

Also, children dying of cancer isn't a choice, not until we have a true cure anyways. The drone program and other policies are ALWAYS a choice, no matter what public sentiment would be. Obama in his 2008 election CAMPAIGNED on change, and hope, and a new way of doing things contrary to the 8 years prior, so I see no reason not to expect him to make controversial decisions. So far, especially in terms of foreign policy, they seem pretty lackluster. Somebody needs to rock the boat.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If a given administration were to end the use of drones and address “infrastructural, economic improvements” and another 9/11 attack occurred killing 3000 or more Americans…

The way around that is to present all the facts and considerations of a given situation to the public and leave the decision up for referendum. In view of the outcomes of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, could we do any worse?

Obviously government is not competent to decide the best course in these war or peace conflicts. We have traditionally presumed it to be and in each case the outcome has ranged from bad to disastrous.

We should not have intervened in Korea or Vietnam and we should not have aided Kuwait, or invaded Iraq, or entered Afghanistan. Our government seems inclined to deploy our military whenever an opportunity presents itself.

You speak as if ‘the government’ were some sort of separate, foreign entity.

It’s not – we’re ‘the government.’

Each of those wars, police actions, and military interventions occurred at the behest of the American people, condoned, authorized, and endorsed by the American people.

‘The government’ and every administration doesn’t dare make a single move unless it believes it has the full support of the American people, regardless how idiotic.

 

[sambino510]

If a given administration were to end the use of drones and address “infrastructural, economic improvements” and another 9/11 attack occurred killing 3000 or more Americans…

The way around that is to present all the facts and considerations of a given situation to the public and leave the decision up for referendum. In view of the outcomes of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, could we do any worse?

Obviously government is not competent to decide the best course in these war or peace conflicts. We have traditionally presumed it to be and in each case the outcome has ranged from bad to disastrous.

We should not have intervened in Korea or Vietnam and we should not have aided Kuwait, or invaded Iraq, or entered Afghanistan. Our government seems inclined to deploy our military whenever an opportunity presents itself.

You speak as if ‘the government’ were some sort of separate, foreign entity.

It’s not – we’re ‘the government.’

Each of those wars, police actions, and military interventions occurred at the behest of the American people, condoned, authorized, and endorsed by the American people.

‘The government’ and every administration doesn’t dare make a single move unless it believes it has the full support of the American people, regardless how idiotic.

Though I agree that these conflicts are vastly supported by the American people, especially early on in the wars, the government and media present the information to the people. They can spin in it various ways and CREATE public support. Thus, the intelligence agencies and media companies that eat the information up heavily influence and fabricate public opinion. If the Bush administration had never said to the American people, "Hey, Saddam Hussein has WMDs and aided in the attack on 9/11", I doubt the average citizen would put two and two together and said we needed to go attack Iraq.

You're right though that the government is not a separate entity; we're all part of the system, and we each have checks and balances on each other.

 

[flacaltenn]

If a given administration were to end the use of drones and address “infrastructural, economic improvements” and another 9/11 attack occurred killing 3000 or more Americans…

If it did, then so what? Is that any worse than if we use a drone program and then another 9/11 attack happens? At least if we work towards economic improvements then we'd know we were on the right side of history, one that doesn't include blowing up villages in order to solve a very complex problem.

You don’t understand.

What do you think would happen to that president, politically, particularly if he were running for reelection?

What do you think his chances would be? Do you think any president in his right mind would risk such a thing?

Stop being so naïve.

you had a great argument goin there for a minute when you suggested that an Admin would be punished for not using a weapon system like this on a PARTICULAR target that turns out to damage us.

But there's no way that I want a weapons system like this used indiscrimately to assassinate US citizens abroad, bomb 4 countries a week, and take massive collateral damages lightly.

Especially not --- to win re-election.

We use technology daily in the form of spy satellites to violate state sovereignty. Even the French sovereignty if we care to.. This leads to a complacency about borders and the definition of aggression. We've been stupid enough to assume that blowing stuff up in another country is the same as snapping photos or listening to their communications.

ANY TIME we intend to blow stuff up unannounced in a country -- it should be under a set of rules APPROVED by the Congress for Executive action.. Needs to happen quickly.. Before we screw up and kill someone's ambassador or prince and start a hot war..

BTW: I disagree strongly with the OP that giving aid and infrastructure to a hell hole like Afghanistan would have ANY effect. Those folk don't VALUE things like roads and schools and bridges the way that we do. Best to have a limited set of expectations on how much influence we can BUY from places with those different values.

 

[sambino510]

If it did, then so what? Is that any worse than if we use a drone program and then another 9/11 attack happens? At least if we work towards economic improvements then we'd know we were on the right side of history, one that doesn't include blowing up villages in order to solve a very complex problem.

You don’t understand.

What do you think would happen to that president, politically, particularly if he were running for reelection?

What do you think his chances would be? Do you think any president in his right mind would risk such a thing?

Stop being so naïve.

you had a great argument goin there for a minute when you suggested that an Admin would be punished for not using a weapon system like this on a PARTICULAR target that turns out to damage us.

But there's no way that I want a weapons system like this used indiscrimately to assassinate US citizens abroad, bomb 4 countries a week, and take massive collateral damages lightly.

Especially not --- to win re-election.

We use technology daily in the form of spy satellites to violate state sovereignty. Even the French sovereignty if we care to.. This leads to a complacency about borders and the definition of aggression. We've been stupid enough to assume that blowing stuff up in another country is the same as snapping photos or listening to their communications.

ANY TIME we intend to blow stuff up unannounced in a country -- it should be under a set of rules APPROVED by the Congress for Executive action.. Needs to happen quickly.. Before we screw up and kill someone's ambassador or prince and start a hot war..

BTW: I disagree strongly with the OP that giving aid and infrastructure to a hell hole like Afghanistan would have ANY effect. Those folk don't VALUE things like roads and schools and bridges the way that we do. Best to have a limited set of expectations on how much influence we can BUY from places with those different values.

I agree with all your stated opinions, though I think even if there is a specific target, this type of attack remains unethical and inhumane. I understand invasion and even more bloody conflict is the only alternative, but I disagree with the program nonetheless. We don't have a right to send a missile into Pakistan to support our security any more than Israel has a right to send a missile into Iraq or Syria to blow up their nuclear facilities. As for the last one about giving aid to foreign countries, I simply meant if we are to do ANYTHING then it should be in the form of economic improvements, not bombs and bullets. My personal view, however, is that a country must stand up on it's own two feet (should it choose to do so) and make its own decisions. We have no right implanting schools and other institutions into a culture that isn't receptive to them. One day these countries will make the push towards greater development, or maybe they won't. That's their right to self-determination, one that we must respect. The Afghan villagers aren't necessarily sitting around in their huts wishing they could learn about calculus and physics.

 

[flacaltenn]

You don’t understand.

What do you think would happen to that president, politically, particularly if he were running for reelection?

What do you think his chances would be? Do you think any president in his right mind would risk such a thing?

Stop being so naïve.

you had a great argument goin there for a minute when you suggested that an Admin would be punished for not using a weapon system like this on a PARTICULAR target that turns out to damage us.

But there's no way that I want a weapons system like this used indiscrimately to assassinate US citizens abroad, bomb 4 countries a week, and take massive collateral damages lightly.

Especially not --- to win re-election.

We use technology daily in the form of spy satellites to violate state sovereignty. Even the French sovereignty if we care to.. This leads to a complacency about borders and the definition of aggression. We've been stupid enough to assume that blowing stuff up in another country is the same as snapping photos or listening to their communications.

ANY TIME we intend to blow stuff up unannounced in a country -- it should be under a set of rules APPROVED by the Congress for Executive action.. Needs to happen quickly.. Before we screw up and kill someone's ambassador or prince and start a hot war..

BTW: I disagree strongly with the OP that giving aid and infrastructure to a hell hole like Afghanistan would have ANY effect. Those folk don't VALUE things like roads and schools and bridges the way that we do. Best to have a limited set of expectations on how much influence we can BUY from places with those different values.

I agree with all your stated opinions, though I think even if there is a specific target, this type of attack remains unethical and inhumane. I understand invasion and even more bloody conflict is the only alternative, but I disagree with the program nonetheless. We don't have a right to send a missile into Pakistan to support our security any more than Israel has a right to send a missile into Iraq or Syria to blow up their nuclear facilities. As for the last one about giving aid to foreign countries, I simply meant if we are to do ANYTHING then it should be in the form of economic improvements, not bombs and bullets. My personal view, however, is that a country must stand up on it's own two feet (should it choose to do so) and make its own decisions. We have no right implanting schools and other institutions into a culture that isn't receptive to them. One day these countries will make the push towards greater development, or maybe they won't. That's their right to self-determination, one that we must respect. The Afghan villagers aren't necessarily sitting around in their huts wishing they could learn about calculus and physics.

Remember that we were not really supposed to be aware of this program and all of it's uses. But it was hard to keep under wraps.. That's the only good thing about it because ---

We were previously doing special ops in a dozen countries a year.. Secretly mopping up the bad guys the more difficult way with special forces and body bags and quick exits. It's NOT new. You just didn't hear it or see it..

You cannot get Congressional approval for every operation like that. But you should have clear guidelines from Congress on the target lists and the countries involved.

You remember when Israel went after the Olympic murderers in the 80s/90s -- they ran dozens of operations for a number of years until THEIR LIST was checked off. That's how justice has to be served sometimes in this "asymetrical" world..

CLEARLY in that case -- the violations of sovereignty and ethics was well contained and scripted. THAT'S the model we should adopt for our defense...

Should be clearly defensive and clearly coherent.

 

[sambino510]

you had a great argument goin there for a minute when you suggested that an Admin would be punished for not using a weapon system like this on a PARTICULAR target that turns out to damage us.

But there's no way that I want a weapons system like this used indiscrimately to assassinate US citizens abroad, bomb 4 countries a week, and take massive collateral damages lightly.

Especially not --- to win re-election.

We use technology daily in the form of spy satellites to violate state sovereignty. Even the French sovereignty if we care to.. This leads to a complacency about borders and the definition of aggression. We've been stupid enough to assume that blowing stuff up in another country is the same as snapping photos or listening to their communications.

ANY TIME we intend to blow stuff up unannounced in a country -- it should be under a set of rules APPROVED by the Congress for Executive action.. Needs to happen quickly.. Before we screw up and kill someone's ambassador or prince and start a hot war..

BTW: I disagree strongly with the OP that giving aid and infrastructure to a hell hole like Afghanistan would have ANY effect. Those folk don't VALUE things like roads and schools and bridges the way that we do. Best to have a limited set of expectations on how much influence we can BUY from places with those different values.

I agree with all your stated opinions, though I think even if there is a specific target, this type of attack remains unethical and inhumane. I understand invasion and even more bloody conflict is the only alternative, but I disagree with the program nonetheless. We don't have a right to send a missile into Pakistan to support our security any more than Israel has a right to send a missile into Iraq or Syria to blow up their nuclear facilities. As for the last one about giving aid to foreign countries, I simply meant if we are to do ANYTHING then it should be in the form of economic improvements, not bombs and bullets. My personal view, however, is that a country must stand up on it's own two feet (should it choose to do so) and make its own decisions. We have no right implanting schools and other institutions into a culture that isn't receptive to them. One day these countries will make the push towards greater development, or maybe they won't. That's their right to self-determination, one that we must respect. The Afghan villagers aren't necessarily sitting around in their huts wishing they could learn about calculus and physics.

Remember that we were not really supposed to be aware of this program and all of it's uses. But it was hard to keep under wraps.. That's the only good thing about it because ---

We were previously doing special ops in a dozen countries a year.. Secretly mopping up the bad guys the more difficult way with special forces and body bags and quick exits. It's NOT new. You just didn't hear it or see it..

You cannot get Congressional approval for every operation like that. But you should have clear guidelines from Congress on the target lists and the countries involved.

You remember when Israel went after the Olympic murderers in the 80s/90s -- they ran dozens of operations for a number of years until THEIR LIST was checked off. That's how justice has to be served sometimes in this "asymetrical" world..

CLEARLY in that case -- the violations of sovereignty and ethics was well contained and scripted. THAT'S the model we should adopt for our defense...

Should be clearly defensive and clearly coherent.

I don't know if I would consider an international hit list as scripted and ethical, but your point is well taken. Justice, whether in the civilian world or in the international world, is not some vigilante Dirty Harry running around killing anyone he thinks is a threat. The U.S. is too focused on the strategy for fighting our enemies and not concerned enough with a strategy to prevent OBTAINING enemies. We have absolutely no interest in why they want to kill us, and I think that's a problem.

That being said, even more important than permission from Congress for secret attacks in other countries is permission from the GOVERNMENTS of said countries. Whatever threat we "perceive" from these various militia groups, that still does not give us a right to act unilaterally across borders with deadly force. I can't even imagine what the average person in Pakistan or Yemen must think with Hellfire missiles raining down around them...

 

[waltky]

Drone program havin' it's ups an' downs...

Glitch forces Navy drone to abort carrier landing
July 12, 2013 > The unmanned aircraft that made history when it achieved two tailhook landings aboard a moving aircraft carrier Wednesday suffered a computer glitch on its third attempt and had to divert to shore, the Navy said Thursday.

Instead of spending the next six days on board the aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush, the prototype X-47B “waved off” the carrier landing and touched down at Wallops Island flight facility on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. The disrupted attempt came on the heels of success. Twice on Wednesday, the aircraft made automated landings on the carrier flight deck, witnessed by top Navy leaders and dozens of journalists who were brought on board for the event. Landing on a carrier is one of the most difficult tasks that fighter pilots perform. It involves adjusting for the movement of the ship at sea and complex wind patterns behind the moving ship. Program operators said it took years to develop the computer algorithms that enabled the drone to respond to all those variables.

After the two landings, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, lauded the technological feat and the story it foretold of a future in which automated drones will be a regular complement to the Navy’s carrier air fleet – allowing for round-the-clock surveillance operations in addition to strike capability. After the journalists departed the ship about 4 p.m. Wednesday, the prototype, which goes by the call sign Salty Dog 502, was launched by catapult for a third landing attempt. It was about 4 miles out and was approaching the deck for a landing when there was a fault with one of three computers used for navigation on the X-47B, said Capt. Jaime Engdahl, the program’s manager.

U.S. Navy Sailors assist in loading the X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) demonstrator aboard the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75)

The other two computers recognized the “anomaly,” and the drone responded the way it was programmed to, he said. It waved itself off and, as it climbed, alerted the mission operator, who directed the craft to fly to the nearest landing site on shore, on Wallops Island. “We have a triple-redundant navigation system,” Engdahl said. “That’s what gives us the level of safety and the level of reliability to land on a ship. One of them had a software issue. The team looked at it and said the best thing to do is send the aircraft back to shore and recover it there.” He said the team was still looking at the data to determine exactly what happened, but expected that a simple reboot – turning the drone off and then restarting it – would remedy the problem.

The drone was still at Wallops Island on Thursday afternoon. It will fly home to Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Maryland when weather permits, the Navy said. The hope is that it can return to the carrier before Monday, when more tests are scheduled. If not, its prototype twin will conduct the tests, a Navy spokesman said. Engdahl said that although the third test did not go as planned, he was pleased with the outcome. “The aircraft and the team – everybody followed the procedures,” he said. “The aircraft followed perfectly. It was actually very successful in doing what it had to do.”

Glitch forces Navy drone to abort carrier landing - U.S. - Stripes

See also:

Navy drone X-47B lands on carrier deck in historic first
July 10, 2013 The U.S. Navy conducted a historic flight test Wednesday off the coast of Virginia when an experimental bat-winged drone made an arrested landing aboard an aircraft carrier for the first time.

The flight of the drone, dubbed X-47B “Salty Dog 502,” could redefine naval aviation. Landing on an aircraft carrier as it plies the ocean and pitches with the waves is considered an extremely difficult feat for even the most seasoned pilot. The X-47B was controlled almost entirely by computer. “By evolving and integrating new technology like the X-47B and the unmanned aircraft to follow, carriers will remain relevant throughout their 50-year lifespan,” Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said in a statement. The X-47B, built by Northrop Grumman Corp., was launched from the deck Wednesday morning. The drone safely flew above the Atlantic Ocean came in for a landing on aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush off the coast of Virginia.

Relying on pinpoint GPS coordinates and advanced avionics, the sleek drone digitally communicated with the carrier’s computers to determine speed, crosswinds and other data as it approaches from miles away. Then shortly before 1:45 p.m. EDT it hit the flight deck and hooked the arresting wire for a safe landing. The test flight was seen as a milestone in drone technology and the program, which has been eight years in the making. Currently, combat drones are controlled remotely by a human pilot. But the X-47B is designed to carry out a combat mission controlled almost entirely by a computer. A human pilot would design its flight path and send it on its way; a computer program would guide it from a ship to the target and back.

What also sets this drone apart from most of today’s combat drones is that it is stealthy and jet-powered. The X-47B, which resembles a miniature B-2 stealth bomber, has a 62-foot wingspan and can fly higher than 40,000 feet. It has a range of more than 2,400 miles and can reach high subsonic speeds. The drone is designed to fly farther and stay in the air longer than existing aircraft because it does not depend on a human pilot’s endurance. Navy fighter pilots may fly missions that last as long as 10 hours. Current drones can fly for three times that long. The X-47B is an experimental jet — that’s what the X stands for — and is designed to demonstrate new technology, such as automated takeoffs, landings and refueling. The drone also has a weapons bay with a payload capacity of 4,500 pounds, but the Navy said it has no plans to arm the aircraft.

The first X-47B had its maiden flight from Edwards Air Force Base in 2011, where it continued testing until last year when it was trucked from the Mojave Desert to Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland. The drone’s design was so startling that motorists passing it by on the highway thought it was a UFO. Over the last year, the Navy conducted shore-based catapults at Patuxent. It also conducted deck-handling and ship-integration testing to demonstrate the capability to safely operate the X-47B on an aircraft carrier flight deck. In May the drone had its first carrier-catapulted flight. There were two X-47Bs developed and built under a contract that has escalated to $1.4 billion. Both were constructed behind barbed-wire fences and double security doors at Northrop’s expansive facility in Palmdale, Calif. Much of the drone’s design work was completed at the company’s facilities in El Segundo, Calif., and Rancho Bernardo, Calif.

Navy drone X-47B lands on carrier deck in historic first - U.S. - Stripes