Weaponized Drones, and Foreign Planes on American Soil?

Originally posted by Zaphod58

And why do you think that Open Skies came about in the first place? To KEEP something bad from happening. We came so close in the Cold War from misunderstandings, and outright lies (the missile and bomber gap lies), that the best way to prevent it from happening again was simply to allow monitoring of bases in question. But you're right, let's keep them from knowing what we're doing, and we won't know what they're doing, and go back to living in terror that someone is going to make a mistake and fire off a missile or six.

You might want to believe that, but the facts and history proves the opposite.

This administration is not doing these things "for the good of the country", they have proven they don't care for the American people time and again. Not to mention that the Russian government has been caught giving U.S. intelligence to enemies of the U.S.

But hey, let's just allow them to monitor our military, nothing bad can happen right?
It's not like the Russian government will give our military intelligence to our enemies, riiight? Oh wait...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


They're not getting any "military intelligence" that can be of real time use. You don't have a clue how this treaty works. It's not like the Russians just fly a plane over the US whenever they want to. They're allowed a maximum of 31 overflights a year, with advanced notice, are limited to commercially available sensors on the aircraft, and all kinds of other restrictions. Nowhere does it say they can fly over, or go wherever they want, and have full and complete access to all our units.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Look at the dates in your article about Russia supposedly giving Iraq intelligence. That was four years after Open Skies officially went into effect, and fourteen after it WA signed.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I don't have an idea how this treaty works?... Again, it's not like the Russians EVER did anything illegal to gather intelligence on U.S. military assets and then gave them to our enemies... right?...

You keep implying that "nothing bad can happen because of this" when "facts" and history proves the contrary...

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Look at the dates in your article about Russia supposedly giving Iraq intelligence. That was four years after Open Skies officially went into effect, and fourteen after it WA signed.

What in the world are you trying to imply now? That because of the "open skies treaty" it was okay for the Russians to leak U.S. intelligence to Saddam's regime?...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


No, I'm not implying nothing bad can happen, but if you actually bother to read it, there are American observers on every flight. Commercial grade sensors only. Advanced notice of any overflight. They're limited where they can overfly (no Area 51, or other classified areas).

Even if they DO cheat, there is no real time intelligence use for this treaty, and they're not going to get any information on black projects. They're not landing at bases and going up to things and examining them. They're flying over and taking pictures.

And it's not like the US has the best record with treaties either. We've been known to cheat on them too. But hey, they're Russians, so they're evil right? I guess it's easier to run around screaming the sky is falling when anyone foreign comes over the US and looks at our military.

Funny, I don't hear the screaming about the Chinese visiting NATO and American installations, and getting much more detailed information than the Russians will EVER get from an Open Skies flight.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You're trying to link the Open Skies treaty to Russia allegedly leaking intel on American troop movements which is BS. The Open Skies treaty was signed in 1992, and took effect in 2002. The Russian leak allegedly happened in 2003, when no overflights occurred.

Open Skies will do less for intelligence operations, than slipping someone into the country, and having them live near a military base will.

A question Zaph,how many pilots do YOU think would fly against their own?
If things go martial law and a fight breaks out what would the jocks do?

reply to post by cavtrooper7


A surprising number would stand up for the people. Most of the ones I knew and know take all aspects of the oath seriously.

reply to post by Zaphod58

I personally KNOW the Army would do the same,not to mention the horrible gut wrenching feeling of killing innocent American civilians.
As above so below.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

 

"military intelligence" that can be of real time use. You don't have a clue how this treaty works.

Of course he doesn't. There are far too few whistleblowers willing to risk their lives for the American people. And the US military is far too professional at keeping its secrets - for the American people to have a clue.

In the past century we trusted, but when realizing that our democracy is turning into a fascist regime, people are correct to be concerned. How is that the fault of the Chinese, or of some bearded people in a cave?

When ATS will be forced to shut down, will you come to give us our freedom back?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You're trying to link the Open Skies treaty to Russia allegedly leaking intel on American troop movements which is BS. The Open Skies treaty was signed in 1992, and took effect in 2002. The Russian leak allegedly happened in 2003, when no overflights occurred.

Open Skies will do less for intelligence operations, than slipping someone into the country, and having them live near a military base will.

No, I am showing that we can't trust neither the Russians, nor our own government anymore. I mentioned what the Russians did during the second gulf war because it shows the Russians are more than willing to give any U.S. military intelligence to our own enemies.

Our own U.S. government sees American patriots, Americans who just want the government to defend the U.S. Constitution, and for our government to follow our own Constitution, yet they label us as "extremists" for that. This government now has the ability to imprison any American without a trial, without a lawyer, and without having any proof of a crime having been committed.

Not only that but the President, Obama, now has the authority to use armed military drones to kill Americans in U.S. soil, and guess what, all the government and Obama have to say is that "such American is/was an extremist/terrorist". Obama got the authority simply due to the fact that he will use those "armed" drones against Americans he deems "extremists/terrorists" even when they haven't committed any crime and there is no proof that they committed any crime...

Heck, even RINOs like McCain alongside most Democrats in power proclaimed that "the entire U.S. is now a war zone", the NDAA is already a federal law.

As for whether or not military personnel will turn against their own citizens, you should know full well that there are quite a few that will follow orders no matter what, including against their own people. Not to mention as the treaty with Russia states they will exchange "experts", and that includes military personnel. Despite them claiming it will not include military personnel the treaty itself makes just a broad mention of "experts".

Ten years ago, even with the open skies treaty signed, it would seem impossible for most Americans to believe that we would allow another military, which has given military intelligence to our enemies, to monitor our own military bases. It doesn't matter that they can only perform 31 flights in a year, once you open this door the Obama administration will find more and more excuses not only to allow the Russian government to monitor our bases, but to even use foreign military personnel in U.S. soil.

It is more, and more obvious that the Obama administration, and any administration that comes after, cannot be trusted until these unconstitutional bills/laws and actions are completely repealed/rescinded.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

A surprising number would stand up for the people. Most of the ones I knew and know take all aspects of the oath seriously.

I have trained and fought alongside sailors and Marines, and I know, as should you, that there are quite a few who unfortunately will turn even against their own people. I also have to wonder what will happen when our military are told that they themselves will be branded "extremists/terrorists" if they don't follow orders to kill American citizens?...

You think that's so far fetched knowing Obama has the authority to use armed drones to kill Americans in U.S. soil?... Even when those Americans did not get a trial, did not get a lawyer, and the government doesn't have to prove they committed any crime?...

So what?
Active duty rosters ain't crap compared to 50% of vets who are pissed and ready to roll.Not including any other group of civilians who are armed, it would be a huge failure. Many "Snowdens will leak ,many combat troops will sabotage and the leadership will have to hide. Then what WMDs on ourselves? Good luck with that.
Logistics will be stolen leaders in units will be targeted with expert skill.THEY are all in the open where nobody can hide,you said you were trained,what happens to SWAT style assaults when they are opposed by superior foes?
For every SEAL,Ranger and Green beret how many more are now civilians?


And the most telling question of all,why has NOBODY invaded us successfully?

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
...
And the most telling question of all,why has NOBODY invaded us successfully?

There is always a first time. Not to mention that the "invasion" has been going on SUCCESSFULLY from within for a long time.

Who would have thought 20-40 years ago that within the U.S. there would be cities and states where firearms are either banned or heavily restricted?

Just firmly believing that "it is not going to happen" has not even stopped the elites from successfully eroding our individual rights over time.

But hey, there is nothing to worry about, it is not like the U.S. is now seen as a "battlefield". It is not like the U.S. President now has the authority to use armed drones to kill Americans in U.S. soil, and to this day the President and his administration have to prove the "terrorists/extremists" had committed or were going to commit a crime, right?...

After all, we all still have the right to an attorney, and we have a right to a speedy public trial by a jury of our peers among other inherent, and natural/God given rights, right?...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

 

But hey, there is nothing to worry about, it is not like the U.S. is now seen as a "battlefield". It is not like the U.S. President now has the authority to use armed drones to kill Americans in U.S. soil, and to this day the President and his administration have to prove the "terrorists/extremists" had committed or were going to commit a crime, right?...

and because of those American terrorists we need a National Security Force that will shoot and kill them on the spot.
Nobel Peace Prize Nominee: Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens”
www.prisonplanet.com...

How will they abbreviate it when the war is over? Maybe 'NATSE'?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

If you have the cash, otherwise, maybe not.

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

If you have the cash, otherwise, maybe not.

Not even if you have the cash. Now it's only the people the government decide have these supposedly natural/God given rights.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by cavtrooper7

 

A surprising number would stand up for the people. [color=gold] Most of the ones I knew and know take all aspects of the oath seriously.

This is why I want pilots,
and to hell with drones.

U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan killed 10 times as many civilians as manned jet fighters, a study by an adviser to the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff said.

us mil . com / study / drones kill 10x more civilians than jets

Besides that
the bloody drones crash all the time.

In the same week that a UK industry insider told a drone conference in the US that the UK is preparing to take preliminary steps in plans that will eventually allow drones to fly in UK civil airspace, three drones on operation in Afghanistan and Somali have crashed.

”We were in complete control up until the collision.”

Crash! It's Raining Drones

All drones should be destroyed at birth.


Mike

p.s. Human pilots, on the other hand, are stand up people.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


Manned aircraft crash too though. Sometimes more than the UAVs do.