|
Venom Snake posted:Nobody in the US will ever give a poo poo about us striking other territories using indirect means. I also think your probably in favor of what we are doing to ISIS, which is mostly what we have been doing for years using drones. I sure wish we wouldn't. I know plenty of peace loving hippies, but we're well aware our voices are neither heard nor sought.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:46 |
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:No poo poo they're new technology. Surprisingly, you have to change your ideas about the world and the capabilities of governments as technology changes! And you need to recognize when new technology provides a different kind of threat and opening for abuse than old technology! That's why we're concerned today about the NSA reading our emails and the government demanding secret warrantless access to everyone's smart phones instead of accusing them of wiretapping our telegraph lines. All of the features you mentioned about drones are applicable to previous technology (cruise missiles). The newness is a significant and distinct part of the outrage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:I sure wish we wouldn't. I know plenty of peace loving hippies, but we're well aware our voices are neither heard nor sought. This is one of those bipartisan agreements that people tend to gloss over when they're painting the opposition as the Worst Party Ever. Corporations and bombs, something the people in power can usually agree on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
computer parts posted:All of the features you mentioned about drones are applicable to previous technology (cruise missiles). The newness is a significant and distinct part of the outrage. People dislike cruise missiles as well for much the similar reasons and used similar criticisms against them in their day. Did we utilize cruise missiles as much as we do drones now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:It's pretty factual that unmanned drones provide a new threat and a new way for the government to abuse and kill people than the days when the only ways were actually sending soldiers/assassins or committing extremely expensive aircraft and their pilots to airstrikes. Drones provide new capabilities, but none that you have described and I think you aren't as right as you think you are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:All of the features you mentioned about drones are applicable to previous technology (cruise missiles). The newness is a significant and distinct part of the outrage. A single Tomahawk cruise missile costs over $1 million and can only be used once, while a Reaper drone is $13.77 million (not including munitions, fuel, and other added costs that can be spread across multiple drones). One drone can be used for dozens or hundreds of strikes in its lifetime, making it far more cost-effective, and is capable of performing its own reconnaissance and loitering over an area rather than needing additional observers to locate targets (which eliminates that cost and risk).
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:In Hawaiian politics news, everyone is still really upset about the Thirty Meter Telescope. There were thousands of people protesting it today "gently caress off, haole" is a pretty legit argument in Hawaii, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:Get the guy who beat Dark Souls with a Rock Band controller on the phone, we need to save the world Pics or it didn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
The bulk of leftists aren't really about total demilitarization, but more about not wasting money/lives on fools' errands and loving with random innocents. Outside of the absolute pacifist circles, most of the complaints with drones aren't that they efficiently scale up military intervention, but that the human cost is completely depersonalized because you don't have Americans at risk. If you had perfect intelligence and perfect targeting — a total dream, of course — then I'd say bring on the drones. Ideally, the things could eliminate unnecessary losses on both sides, but instead we're blowing up weddings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Pics or it didn't happen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=user?gbbearzly
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
CroatianAlzheimers posted:"gently caress off, haole" is a pretty legit argument in Hawaii, though. "gently caress off haole, that land is sacred" *throws beer can on ground while climbing into into huge monster truck with 'HE>I' sticker*
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Pics or it didn't happen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02my_zhX4Bs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSCy4Bc0uMU
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:The bulk of leftists aren't really about total demilitarization, but more about not wasting money/lives on fools' errands and loving with random innocents. Outside of the absolute pacifist circles, most of the complaints with drones aren't that they efficiently scale up military intervention, but that the human cost is completely depersonalized because you don't have Americans at risk. If you had perfect intelligence and perfect targeting — a total dream, of course — then I'd say bring on the drones. Ideally, the things could eliminate unnecessary losses on both sides, but instead we're blowing up weddings. "Total demilitarization" is a pipe dream of massive hippies who just think everyone will be happy and do drugs with them if they just give peace a chance, bro. But it's hard to deny that the US couldn't do with lowering its spending in favor of fixing up domestic problems and improving international relations, and that we've spent a lot of decades loving around and doing violence in ways that we really shouldn't be doing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
You forgot to post the original: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Edminster posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02my_zhX4Bs  I think I'm changing my vote for next November.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:You forgot to post the original: Beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:"Total demilitarization" is a pipe dream of massive hippies who just think everyone will be happy and do drugs with them if they just give peace a chance, bro. But it's hard to deny that the US couldn't do with lowering its spending in favor of fixing up domestic problems and improving international relations, and that we've spent a lot of decades loving around and doing violence in ways that we really shouldn't be doing. Um, excuse me we are subsidizing a make-work program to prop up a decent section of the economy. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The reason drones get people riled up is because their relatively small size-to-firepower ratio and lack of a pilot to endanger makes them cheap and easy to stealthily insert in an area to make precision bombardments. You can assassinate and strike point targets (as long as conditions are right) without needing to commit an entire $65 million aircraft and its necessary support crew, all without a single life being put at risk except the targets'. Making airstrikes cheaper, easier, and less risky in both lives and materiel means that the door can be opened for using them more often. This is already being seen with how often they're being used in countries like Pakistan to strike terror suspects and how many innocent lives have been turned to ground beef by them in such a short time span, with the ACLU filing a lawsuit after American citizens outside of a conflict zone were killed by them. That's a nice theory, kid, but we've been using cruise missiles to do the same job for decades at this point, and they also don't require risking a human pilot and expensive aircraft either. If I remember right, Bill Clinton really started ramping up their use starting with early strikes against Al Qaeda and in the Balkans. They've been a workhorse for the US military ever since. They're also nearly as controllable as a drone. You people really need to stop acting like the choice was going to be a manned plane instead most of the time. Edit: And don't forget that nearly all of our drones require friendly territory to fly over, they can't handle any sort of serious antiaircraft defense. You'll notice we all of a sudden stopped flying them in Yemen when the government collapsed. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Do you really think Hillary will replace Obama's picks for DOJ chief? Is this a serious question? Are you really asking if the Clinton machine isn't going to clean house and bring in its own people instead? Do you think lots of appointees will get a pass if they aren't part of her circle just because a Dem appointed them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Pics or it didn't happen. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dark+souls+rock+band+controller&l=1 Back on topic though, there's nothing especially heinous about drone strikes other than the volume/simplicity of doing them. Basically it just means we can be as big of monsters as we've always been internationally for half the cost. As a human rights violation I don't think it is worse than Israel shooting their missiles into Palestine and vice versa, and they've been doing that for ages.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Is this a serious question? Are you really asking if the Clinton machine isn't going to clean house and bring in its own people instead? Do you think lots of appointees will get a pass if they aren't part of her circle just because a Dem appointed them? While broadly true, I think Loretta Lynch is a safe choice for Attorney General in the next administration. Hillary might choose to go with someone else, but Lynch has already gone through vetting and nomination hearings and has enough votes for confirmation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dark+souls+rock+band+controller&l=1 They don't really cost that much less than a cruise missile strike dude. What they're super cheap for is flying slowly over places for surveillance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:A single Tomahawk cruise missile costs over $1 million and can only be used once, while a Reaper drone is $13.77 million (not including munitions, fuel, and other added costs that can be spread across multiple drones). One drone can be used for dozens or hundreds of strikes in its lifetime, making it far more cost-effective, and is capable of performing its own reconnaissance and loitering over an area rather than needing additional observers to locate targets (which eliminates that cost and risk). On the other hand, a JDAM costs $25,000, and can be strapped to pretty much any aircraft the Air Force feels like flying that day. The actual cost has never been the concern in planning these strikes. Zeitgueist posted:People dislike cruise missiles as well for much the similar reasons and used similar criticisms against them in their day. I don't understand the argument you're making here. Cruise missiles have been around since the 1950s, and pretty much every military still makes heavy use of them-hell, the Air Force just introduced a brand-new one, the AGM-158. It's difficult to compare, though, since cruise missiles are more useful against hardened targets or enemies with a semblance of an air-defense network, which obviously your standard Afghan wedding isn't going to have. The Air Force is using drones right now because they're typically cheaper and more effective than traditional airstrikes, but they'd be doing these airstrikes anyway without drones like they were doing ten years ago. Arguing against the technology is dumb, since a Predator doesn't exactly do much the Air Force couldn't do already. It's the military's policy of conducting these strikes that should be the target of concern, but I guess it's just easier to point at the new scary technology and yell about it I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Joementum posted:While broadly true, I think Loretta Lynch is a safe choice for Attorney General in the next administration. Hillary might choose to go with someone else, but Lynch has already gone through vetting and nomination hearings and has enough votes for confirmation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, I find myself in complete agreement with Nintendo Kid.... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Joementum posted:While broadly true, I think Loretta Lynch is a safe choice for Attorney General in the next administration. Hillary might choose to go with someone else, but Lynch has already gone through vetting and nomination hearings and has enough votes for confirmation. She has only ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:On the other hand, a JDAM costs $25,000, and can be strapped to pretty much any aircraft the Air Force feels like flying that day. The actual cost has never been the concern in planning these strikes. Yeah it's important to remember that the military essentially has infinite budget if they want it. Price hasn't been a consideration for the military since 1941.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:She has only 50 votes for nomination and is still blocked because of the unrelated sex trafficking bill. At this point I am convinced that McConnell is waiting for one of the four Republicans pledged to her to flip or for Menendez to resign and then, suddenly, she's brought up now that she can no longer pass. Kirk flipped after the Menendez situation to make it 50. If she comes up for a vote the Republicans know they need to confirm her and will supply the votes to do so. Easier for them: don't bring her up for a vote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Deval Patrick is joining Bain Capital 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
I didn't see this here today: A man committed suicide at the US capitol holding a "Tax the 1%" sign. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/11/washington-dc-capitol-building-lockdown/25633433/ For some reason USA today doesn't actually say what the sign said, just referring to it as a "social justice message", but the Washington Post article does. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...9a32_story.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I don't understand the argument you're making here. Cruise missiles have been around since the 1950s, and pretty much every military still makes heavy use of them-hell, the Air Force just introduced a brand-new one, the AGM-158. It's difficult to compare, though, since cruise missiles are more useful against hardened targets or enemies with a semblance of an air-defense network, which obviously your standard Afghan wedding isn't going to have. The purpose of remote death machines, be they missiles or reusable drones, is to remotely carry out war without the problems of people on the ground. I wasn't making any sort of technological argument against drones. It feels like some of you aren't well equipped to deal with arguments that aren't in your particular set of canned responses. I'm not exactly reinventing the wheel here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:The purpose of remote death machines, be they missiles or reusable drones, is to remotely carry out war without the problems of people on the ground. I wasn't making any sort of technological argument against drones. There are no people on the ground with manned planes either, hope this helps. War has been made no easier.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:There are no people on the ground with manned planes either, hope this helps. War has been made no easier. Who gives a poo poo, the perception is that we're more removed. We also don't have any chance of "our boys" getting shot down when it's a missle or a drone. I also don't like manned planes bombing all over the place because we need to justify our F35 orders or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:It feels like some of you aren't well equipped to deal with arguments that aren't in your particular set of canned responses. I'm not exactly reinventing the wheel here. I'm a TLAM Officer, so no, I think I'm pretty well equipped. You're wrong about some of your assumptions on employment, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Crain posted:For some reason USA today doesn't actually say what the sign said, just referring to it as a "social justice message", but the Washington Post article does. "Man dies in Saigon street in an apparent religious message." We cannot grant legitimacy to domestic terrorism and politically motivated suicides by giving this man a venue for his beliefs. Better to just brush it aside to maintain the status quo. It's simply the most prudent and safest action for all involved.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Boon posted:I'm a TLAM Officer, so no, I think I'm pretty well equipped. You're wrong about some of your assumptions on employment, by the way. I'm not questioning you on technical capabilities. I'm not making a technical argument. So your employment doesn't particularly matter to me in that respect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
All war is a crime. Hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Who gives a poo poo, the perception is that we're more removed. We also don't have any chance of "our boys" getting shot down when it's a missile or a drone. That perception exists among idiots, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. It doesn't govern how the military is actually used. And people only care about "pour boys" getting shot down as an excuse to intensify intervention. The people who think drones cause a perception of being removed aren't behind military decisions, and the generals don't really care how many enlisted and junior officers could be lost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
^^^ Your last statement is ridiculous. There may be an "acceptable risk" but military planning is increasingly risk averse. Zeitgueist posted:I'm not questioning you on technical capabilities. I'm not making a technical argument. So your employment doesn't particularly matter to me in that respect. Fair enough... quote:Did we utilize cruise missiles as much as we do drones now? Yes. Hope that helps form your opinion on the history of our stand-off death machines. Boon fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:46 |
|
|
Bill Clinton and George W Bush were both super cruise missile happy. And the cruise missiles could be shot into any sort of unfriendly territory unlike most drones which need at least airspace control by manned air forces and ground forces, so really you can use them in a lot more places than drones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:13
|
|