Trump clears CIA to issue drone strikes

[Dill]

(03-16-2017, 10:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: In my experience, I've seen more collateral damage from ground troops than from drones. If we're not going to use the "easy button" then we should go back to primitive weapons and stop using 3:1 forces so we can make life more precious when we snuff it out.

Going back to supporting ground troops, if a drone prevents the ground troops from being used isn't that better support than indirect or close air? Many ground troops don't like being shot at.

I appreciate Bfine's concern that bombs and drones are not very precise. Collateral damage creates more enemies in the long run, precisely because innocents get killed. And I agree with Bels' basic premise that distance from combat and consequences thereof inclines decision-makers to apply military force more readily.

But you bring up an excellent point here. Seems like lots of spec ops missions go awry, and "up close and personal" is part of the reason why. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/afghans-us-troops-covered-up-civilian-deaths/
Or they don't even have to be spec ops. Think of Haditha, in Iraq.

Up close, the "real experience" is what sells video games.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/arts/video-games/spec-ops-the-line-from-2k-games-makes-killing-personal.html

But most of the soldiers and Marines I've know don't like it so much, because unlike the game, there is no reset. (A few do, or did, but not for good reasons, I think.) They would rather the drone strike. Nothing wrong with indirect fire either.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Drones don't kill people. People kill people. Drones are a tool. Just like AR-15s are tools. If you outlaw drones, then only the bad guys who don't follow the rules will have drones. The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a drone (or bears at schools) is a good guy with a drone.