Drones are BAD, TERRIBLE things!

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ThePeaceMaker
 


I'd say most of the drones flying wouldn't be the reaper or predator type but smaller easier to fly ones. Say you could have one that flys an autonomous route with an integrated sensor package that can detect fires, an alarm goes off at the fire station and they respond. That's just one example, I don't know if it's even possible though that just an idea.




posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Stealthbomber
 


I don't think they are evil personally , I just think they are being pushed for monetary reasons via its lobbying industries versus need.

If the side effect of these drones is that lives are saved, then great. However, the real intentions I see now is the pursuit of profit and the potential for that side effect to decrease over the long run.

However, their is also a potential to save people as you point out in the long run. People tend to be in their best behavior when being watched and monitored 100% of the time.
edit on 22-11-2013 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Stealthbomber
 


Agreed. Most of these things are going to be little more than the quadcopter models in the "toy" department at Wally-World. But, what they carry will be the key to how they can be used / abused.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 


That Is probably true that they are being pushed for extra profit.

People are on their best behaviour when being watched and a side effect could be people may feel they are always being watched when in reality they can't watch everybody, however they may have the capability to overlook a city and record it then say if there's a shooting or something they could investigate it further.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   

ThePeaceMaker

Stealthbomber

ThePeaceMaker

Stealthbomber

Montana
I am not afraid of drones. I am afraid of the misuse drones will be put to doing.

How is this different than a piloted a/c? Drones usually take at least one less person to be convinced to participate in the misuse. Other than that, no difference, as I am just as concerned about the misuse of the police helicopter with the FLIR.

I don't think any logical person would disagree with the law of human nature that the frequency of wrongful actions increase when they become easier to commit.


You can have a lot of fun with a police chopper with FLIR. I won't post exactly how as it may break t&c's but all you need is a bucket and an extension cord.


Now I am curious ? You Aussies got nothing better to do than lose the ashes.


If your curious about that you should see what you can do with a balloon and an electric blanket or copper wire, a certain chemical and a candle


Tease! You are going to have to u2u me lol
edit on 22-11-2013 by ThePeaceMaker because: My poor grammar


You have a U2U



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   

ThePeaceMaker
Question for Zaph: never really seen you comment about drones, what do you make of the use of drones? You hate it or not bothered? I'm sure you have more ideas on how they operate. Just curious of what you make of drone use


For the purpose of them (ISR, etc), they're great. I'm not so keen on the whole strike anyone use, but they do save lives, and keep the boots on the ground safe, so for that they're great.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Tusks

Spookybelle

Tusks
Military Snipers sometimes border on murderers, but they do, on occasion, have a chance of being killed, captured, or wounded.

Killing strangers from a play-station 10K miles away is just plain murder--even if "ordered" to do so.


So you don't like artillery either than I take it?

Or ships that shoot missiles onto land.

Or any type of long range weaponry?

That's just dumb.


You're missin the point, SpookyBelle.

Artillery gunners, bomber pilots, and sailors on warships are also in range of similar weapons by the other side. They are in the field of combat and are in harm's way.

The desk jockey back in the states isn't. If one's life is not remotely in danger, and you are killing people you don't know and whose activities you are only guessing--then that is an entirely different thing from combat. It is murder by definition.
edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)


So when a sub launches a tomahawk missile or a plane launches from miles away that is wrong also?

They certainly are not in harms way.

It seems that taking out terrorist targets, who can strike anywhere in the US at any time, with weapons from anywhere, still leaves them open to being attacked. Haven't there been recent navy base attacks?



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Spookybelle
 


Every time a sub launches or dives, or a fighter jet takes off, the men involved are putting themselves at considerably more danger than the guy at the desk with the X-box. The guy w/x-box is in no more danger than a 10 yo doing the same thing at home without real weapons.

Besides the "at-risk" consideration, the guy operating the drone is also looking directly at the people he is going to kill. If they are actively using weapons, that's one thing. But most reports seem to indicate the drones are being used in Pakistan---where we are not supposed to have troops. Whether you wish to recognize the after-the-fact risk to the psyche of those involved in these actions or not, it exists. And it is something I would not wish on anyone.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Tusks
reply to post by Spookybelle
 


Every time a sub launches or dives, or a fighter jet takes off, the men involved are putting themselves at considerably more danger than the guy at the desk with the X-box. The guy w/x-box is in no more danger than a 10 yo doing the same thing at home without real weapons.

Besides the "at-risk" consideration, the guy operating the drone is also looking directly at the people he is going to kill. If they are actively using weapons, that's one thing. But most reports seem to indicate the drones are being used in Pakistan---where we are not supposed to have troops. Whether you wish to recognize the after-the-fact risk to the psyche of those involved in these actions or not, it exists. And it is something I would not wish on anyone.


So some guy that pushes a button in a submarine from 1000 miles away is facing real combat while a man 10,000 miles away who uses a joystick is not?

I'm sorry but I'm failing to see your logic here.

We have drone bases in Pakistan so of course they are in use there.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   
So you're saying the guy who is in the submarine or the fighter-jet has no more courage/risk than the guy in the cubicle with the x-box? You must be a cubicle-kind of person.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Tusks
So you're saying the guy who is in the submarine or the fighter-jet has no more courage/risk than the guy in the cubicle with the x-box? You must be a cubicle-kind of person.


Did I say that somewhere?

I hardly think so.

I was stating that neither should be considered murder because they are the same thing. A guy in a sub 1000 miles away launching missiles into Pakistan is just as safe as a guy sitting in Wyoming yet you consider one an act of courage and the other an act of murder.

It makes no sense. I'd say the guy in the sub is actually safer since nobody has access to him. Wouldn't be hard for Pakistan to put a sniper outside the drone trailer in Wyoming.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
For all you drone haters out there:

defensetech.org...-21950

...I know, I shouldn't be encouraging them.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Sammamishman
 


You would think(hope) that the companies would have a stand alone GPS tracker on their drones.

I'd say that when the drones go into full use, they would make laws akin to hijacking an aircraft to deter people from doing this



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Stealthbomber
reply to post by solidshot
 


LARS(lethal autonomous robots) are not possible with current technology and are still a long way off. They couldn't put these into use unless they were certain they could only kill enemies, it would be a publicity nightmare if one of these went rouge and started killing a bunch of civilians.


That's not strictly true.

Back in the 80's when in the British Army, i saw archived video on robotic rifles on spring loaded tripods that were dropped from aircraft, landed, set themselves up and immediately went to work, 24/7 scanning for enemy personnel to shoot at...on their own, no operators pushing buttons.

That was probaby 35 - 40 years ago...a year in robotics is a very long time these days, so i'd frankly be amazed if they didn't have black projects churning out Mk1 terminators or very similar robots by now.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Sammamishman
 


I made this Facebook page for all the drone haters out there! Drone Porn!

www.facebook.com/droneporn

MODS delete if I'm not allowed to post this please.
edit on 13-12-2013 by Stealthbomber because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Stealthbomber
 


Ohhhh.......yah.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Drones aren't evil or insidious. They are like any other military strike asset. Whether a target is taken out by a missile fired from a Predator-drone or an F/A-18, Apache or B-1, they are accomplishing the same thing.

The only difference is the location of the operator.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Leonidas

Yeah we know, that was what I was trying to convey with this thread, I started this thread ages ago when drones were getting a bit of bad publicity.





top topics
 
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix IS ON-AIR! (there are 78 minutes remaining).
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP8 - Season Finale!

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def