DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Predator Drones-Helpful or hurting?

**Flefebleaft** · 12-14-2009, 12:42 AM

Both you and Mr. BS are looking at this too simply.

First, I am not against using the drones. So far I do not think the moral issue is a problem.

The issue I raise is NOT a fair fight issue, but a moral one of a combantant that can wage war without facing the same consequences as the enemy they are attacking. So long as the drones are used selectively I do not see the moral problem.

However, does the using the drones mean that Nevada faces a greater chance of being attacked? If so will the drones lead to victory or an extension of the war?

Colin, again, outside the mythical schoolyard rules, your logic is absurd. From what I can tell you're fine with drones being used to wage war. But your "morality" is somehow troubled that the drones are piloted out of command centers in Nevada. Again, basic smart war fighting philosophy going back to at least Sun Tzu obliges a strategist to maximize his ability to incapacitate the enemy and minimize risks and losses to his own forces. Anything else would be considered wreckless incompetence or outright stupidity.

When not pushed into relatively "traditional" forms of warfare (i.e. fighting a military force) the enemy in this particular conflict prefers to wage war through sensational attacks on symbolic targets, and if incapable of that attacks on relatively pedestrian targets to demoralize a civilian population or attempt to influence a government's policy. Would they attack Nevada because that's where the drone flew out of? To eliminate the drone threat? No. Because it's pretty easy to see that the "desktop" nature of drone flight would mean to truly make a dent in the United States' drone-based war fighting capacity, the enemy would basically have to take down the computer capability and the electromagnetic spectrum that allows a joystick enabled desktop computer to communicate to a satellite to issue instructions to a drone.

12-14-2009, 12:42 AM	#26
Flefebleaft Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 409 Senior Member	Both you and Mr. BS are looking at this too simply. First, I am not against using the drones. So far I do not think the moral issue is a problem. The issue I raise is NOT a fair fight issue, but a moral one of a combantant that can wage war without facing the same consequences as the enemy they are attacking. So long as the drones are used selectively I do not see the moral problem. However, does the using the drones mean that Nevada faces a greater chance of being attacked? If so will the drones lead to victory or an extension of the war? Colin, again, outside the mythical schoolyard rules, your logic is absurd. From what I can tell you're fine with drones being used to wage war. But your "morality" is somehow troubled that the drones are piloted out of command centers in Nevada. Again, basic smart war fighting philosophy going back to at least Sun Tzu obliges a strategist to maximize his ability to incapacitate the enemy and minimize risks and losses to his own forces. Anything else would be considered wreckless incompetence or outright stupidity. When not pushed into relatively "traditional" forms of warfare (i.e. fighting a military force) the enemy in this particular conflict prefers to wage war through sensational attacks on symbolic targets, and if incapable of that attacks on relatively pedestrian targets to demoralize a civilian population or attempt to influence a government's policy. Would they attack Nevada because that's where the drone flew out of? To eliminate the drone threat? No. Because it's pretty easy to see that the "desktop" nature of drone flight would mean to truly make a dent in the United States' drone-based war fighting capacity, the enemy would basically have to take down the computer capability and the electromagnetic spectrum that allows a joystick enabled desktop computer to communicate to a satellite to issue instructions to a drone.
	Quote