Originally posted by The GUT
Actually, our discussion here is outmoded and irrelevant. Globalism is on the table and in the hearts of the decision makers. Does anyone disagree?
Don't get me wrong: It sounds good on paper, but...
Originally posted by neo96
Before drones there were cruise missles before cruise missles, there were planes dropping bombs.
Originally posted by Eidolon23
And even if there is a plan, and even if it is being executed in front of our very eyes, I like to think that a dialog is still possible, and that good ideas may replace outmoded and defective ones.
Originally posted by jplaysguitar
so is there any way to hide from these things? thermal blanket? idk
The agency projects that 30,000 drones could be in the nation’s skies by 2020.
But our officers just knew it had a camera and missiles and stayed in the air a long time. They didn't care about anything else. And that ignorance ended up costing the taxpayers millions. Like, "fund a large school district" millions. When I was in Iraq, some genius decided the right place to store our fuel was in steel barrels, exposed to the sun. The fuel went bad, and seven aircraft crashed as a result.
And this won't get solved soon -- drone pilots are very scarce, and they're also unlikely to be promoted. So we're years away from seeing any overlap on the Venn diagram for "people who understand drones" and "people who command them." But really, what could possibly go wrong?
Wait a second, aren't we in a freaking depression here? WTF? Oh, but there's more. Because, see, the taxpayer isn't the only one underwriting the drone industry. Or at least, not for long, as we are attempting to hawk this tech to other nations.
Several companies have in fact already been granted the right to sell drone-related equipment by the State Department, including L-3 Communications, Dream Hammer, and Broadcast Microwave systems...
Well, that's just great. I'm glad our tax dollars are being funnelled to fund tech that will eventually (of course) be deployed against us.
Continued...edit on 27-9-2012 by Eidolon23 because: ...
Hate to sound militant but I think drones are destined to be one of the finest assets in Americas' arsenal. This technology will only get better with time and having adversaries of America recognize that uncle Sam is capable of performing surgical strikes at tactical targets to end conflicts swiftly and definitely would be a positive thing. If that makes me militant than so be it.
Other countries will want this technology, we can reap the profits and other benefits of this program.
Also you really think the government is going to use these weapons against its' own civilians in significant numbers?
Drone development and production is one thing I can get behind.
Also you really think the government is going to use these weapons against its' own civilians in significant numbers? Are you wearing a tinfoil hat? We already have enough missiles to blow up the entire country. You're being ridiculous.
...Majorities in most countries are opposed to U.S. drone attacks against terrorists. McCauley notes, 'Should drones' unpopularity in the United States continue to increase, and their unpopularity in other countries persist, they may well become politically impractical, no matter how convenient and cost-effective the technology may be'.
Metin Gurcan's "Drone Warfare and Contemporary Strategy Making: Does the Tail Wag the Dog?" argues that increasing use of drones in asymmetric conflict is reversing the dominance of strategy over tactics and may be undermining civilian control of the military. Gurcan notes that while there are a number of advantages to using drones, such as effectiveness at removing key targets and avoidance of friendly casualties, they may also increase the power of extremists amongst civilian populations by creating a siege mentality. He notes that breaking the power of extremists does not rest on the killing or capture of high-value targets, rather it depends on 'removing their power to intimidate -- something that drone strikes cannot do'.