PDA

View Full Version : Drones


Pontius Pirate
03-07-2013, 08:10 PM
So Rand Paul decides to filibuster John Brennan's nomination because of....drones. Anyways, seems like drones are a hot topic right now. How do you feel about this controversial topic?

houghtam
03-07-2013, 10:38 PM
So Rand Paul decides to filibuster John Brennan's nomination because of....drones. Anyways, seems like drones are a hot topic right now. How do you feel about this controversial topic?

Broad topic, so I'll answer equally broadly. I would like to see them used to replace "front line" troops (whatever that means these days), and less for covert and precision ops. There are some things that need the precision of a human's touch, and these are one of them.

The thought that they could (have) be (been) used on Americans, whether on American soul or not, is appalling. The REALITY that it is only a matter of time before someone weaponizes one for personal use in the United States is downright terrifying. You can guarantee the second amendment rights folks will be out for that en force.

cutthemdown
03-07-2013, 10:43 PM
LOL I know you mean soil but American Soul sounds like a cool new music show that should be on TV.

Paul was grandstanding but i guess he has a point. They need to make killing an American with a drone more then just what the white paper laid out. It said something like a high ranking govt official with knowledge of a threat to America? A little vauge regardless of what party you belong to.

But Houghtam how do drones take over for front line troops? Are you a fan of battlestar gallactica?

milehighiniowacity
03-07-2013, 11:27 PM
Broad topic, so I'll answer equally broadly. I would like to see them used to replace "front line" troops (whatever that means these days), and less for covert and precision ops. There are some things that need the precision of a human's touch, and these are one of them.

The thought that they could (have) be (been) used on Americans, whether on American soul or not, is appalling. The REALITY that it is only a matter of time before someone weaponizes one for personal use in the United States is downright terrifying. You can guarantee the second amendment rights folks will be out for that en force.

Well put. +1

Blart
03-08-2013, 12:38 AM
Drones, as they're used right now, are for monitoring civilians in other countries, and (apparently) our own country soon.

Stanford & NYU did extensive studies on how drones are used, and published their findings here:

http://livingunderdrones.org/

http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/themes/website/data/php/timthumb.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2012/09/NYT.png&q=90&w=300&h=133


Personally, I don't like that the USA is violating international law. I don't like that women and children are slaughtered by drones. I don't like forcing towns to live in fear, with the constant buzz of human-less death machines, and how that creates a new generation of terrorists.


If we had a Republican president, you'd see protests against drones. Which is why capitalism is so perfectly built for neoliberal presidents: They keep the people from rioting at home with a handout or two, and big business supports the never-ending wars. Everyone is happy.


Rand Paul didn't want this coming to America,

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6yMOzvmgVhc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And for that I thank him.

IHaveALight
03-08-2013, 10:29 AM
They are currently using drones for residential surveillance purposes in Denver. If you pay attention you will see. Just don't expect them to look like the war drones that we see pictures of.

Requiem
03-08-2013, 10:40 AM
I got about 9 drones in my shed.

Rohirrim
03-08-2013, 10:47 AM
Constant surveillance is the price we must pay for our security. All is well.

houghtam
03-08-2013, 10:51 AM
I got about 9 drones in my shed.

A friend of mine does work on them for the forestry service, I think, and helped them develop some sort of mapping software that he apparently can't talk about now because he just got sent over somewhere in the ME.

This ship has come and sailed, folks. Halfway to Portsmouth by now. The only solution is to nip it in the bud and start regulating. Anything over a certain weight ratio or something like that needs to be licensed and registered. That way you're not outlawing stuff that is purely for entertainment and not capable of carrying out an attack, but honestly...I don't even know enough about drones to even begin to fathom what they're currently capable of, let alone what they will be 5, 10 years in the future. This is something that needs to be brought to the forefront of discussion with the public before it gets out of hand.

Pontius Pirate
03-08-2013, 09:09 PM
http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/04/20/32053/skynet.jpg?t=20110420200649

Dukes
03-08-2013, 09:40 PM
Constant surveillance is the price we must pay for our security. All is well.

Talk about one of the biggest horse **** pieces of legislation (The Patriot Act) in the history of this nation.

Dukes
03-08-2013, 09:43 PM
The REALITY that it is only a matter of time before someone weaponizes one for personal use in the United States is downright terrifying. You can guarantee the second amendment rights folks will be out for that en force.

First off, I completely agree with you on this topic. But this part is silly at best. If someone really wanted to, and i'm not advocating it by any means, they could make their own drone with a RC airplane and a camera. Would be pretty easy to put explosives on it as well. The technology is there, the desire is not.

Arkie
03-09-2013, 08:47 AM
Right to bear drones! lol It's only fair if we're still a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The spirit of the 2nd amendment is for the people to protect themselves from outside and inside threats. The idea is to never again allow a privileged ruling class to have better weapons than the people. It will begin with law enforcement using them for surveillance with tiny mosquito drones equipped with a cameras, microphones and needles to take a DNA sample with the pain of a mosquito bite. They will be able to inject tracking devices under the skin. They can fly in swarms, they can have lethal toxins in their needles. The possibilities are endless for future development.

http://robertstaniford.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/mosquitobug-300x225.jpg

houghtam
03-09-2013, 10:04 AM
First off, I completely agree with you on this topic. But this part is silly at best. If someone really wanted to, and i'm not advocating it by any means, they could make their own drone with a RC airplane and a camera. Would be pretty easy to put explosives on it as well. The technology is there, the desire is not.

I wholly disagree with you that the desire is not there. There are already members of the Michigan Militia (now called the Michigan Militia Corps) who are working on this. And their reasoning is exactly what Arkie said: "Well if the government can have it, so can I."

Dukes
03-09-2013, 11:23 AM
I wholly disagree with you that the desire is not there. There are already members of the Michigan Militia (now called the Michigan Militia Corps) who are working on this. And their reasoning is exactly what Arkie said: "Well if the government can have it, so can I."

You might be right. I personally haven't seen or heard of the want or desire for that kind of thing.

cutthemdown
03-09-2013, 08:06 PM
The private sector should have drones. I can think of some uses right off the top of my head can't you? But mounting a gun on said drone or dropping an explosive will still be illegal.

baja
03-09-2013, 08:20 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYETraMg_mM

cutthemdown
03-09-2013, 08:58 PM
Obama should announce houghtams plan to replace front line troops with drones asap. Then our boys sit at home in suits controlling their drones. Hell they dont even have to go to war anymore. Damn Houghtam and you call be a hawk. So where are we going to march our drone army to? N Korea? Sweet.

houghtam
03-09-2013, 09:45 PM
Obama should announce houghtams plan to replace front line troops with drones asap. Then our boys sit at home in suits controlling their drones. Hell they dont even have to go to war anymore. Damn Houghtam and you call be a hawk. So where are we going to march our drone army to? N Korea? Sweet.

Uhhh, dude? "Robots" have been taking over for humans on the battlefield in an increasing capacity for years, and their uses are only increasing. It doesn't surprise me you can't recognize this, as you are stuck in a 50's mindset and think the first and only purpose of the government is to protect us from an attack by the combined strength of the entire world.

You're clearly not based in any reality I am aware of.

cutthemdown
03-09-2013, 10:09 PM
Uhhh, dude? "Robots" have been taking over for humans on the battlefield in an increasing capacity for years, and their uses are only increasing. It doesn't surprise me you can't recognize this, as you are stuck in a 50's mindset and think the first and only purpose of the government is to protect us from an attack by the combined strength of the entire world.

You're clearly not based in any reality I am aware of.

Name one major battle where robots took over for humans? No humans use robots and drones on the battlefield. Your ridiculous comment they should replace front line troops is some sort of fantasy. Yeah you are based in reality alright.

houghtam
03-09-2013, 11:27 PM
Name one major battle where robots took over for humans? No humans use robots and drones on the battlefield. Your ridiculous comment they should replace front line troops is some sort of fantasy. Yeah you are based in reality alright.

What do you think "replace front line troops" means, exactly? Did you read it as my saying replace all of them? No. Think of manufacturing. How many jobs were there 50 years ago? 25? Now? How many have been "replaced" by robots? Answer: a metric **** ton.

Same will happen with the military, you watch. Robots, drones, whatever you want to call them will continue to prove successful in more and more areas (they already perform S&D, bomb disposal, mine laying/sweeping, surveying, scouting...all things that used to be done by humans). If we don't figure it out, someone else will.

Btw, this is what Obama meant by the horses and bayonets comment. You guys were so focused on whining about a perceived slight that you apparently didn't catch that.

Why is it so hard for you to adjust to the 21st century? We're 13 years in, buddy. It's time to **** or get off the pot.

jhat01
03-10-2013, 01:11 AM
You guys act like these drones are robots. They aren't. They are flown by real people and the sensors are operated by real people. They aren't mindless machines roaming the skies on some super duper AI.

cutthemdown
03-10-2013, 05:23 AM
When i hear someone say i support drones replacing front line troops I rightfully think they mean one day instead of 30 thousand troops heading into some hot zone they mean 30 thousand drones controlled by men at a safe distance.

What you mean to say is you support the military continuing to find ways to use drones, that make troops safer. But you said replace and that means replace. Not my fault you don't make sense. It's about as much a fantasy as your world powered by solar and wind. I get a good chuckle out of it though please keep them coming.

houghtam
03-10-2013, 06:35 AM
When i hear someone say i support drones replacing front line troops I rightfully think they mean one day instead of 30 thousand troops heading into some hot zone they mean 30 thousand drones controlled by men at a safe distance.

What you mean to say is you support the military continuing to find ways to use drones, that make troops safer. But you said replace and that means replace. Not my fault you don't make sense. It's about as much a fantasy as your world powered by solar and wind. I get a good chuckle out of it though please keep them coming.

Yes! I said replace, and I meant it. There will be fewer soldiers on the front line because of what drones are capable of, as well as the smaller cost of resources.

You, still stuck in the 50s, thought I meant the robots that use old people's medicine for fuel, didn't you?

Hilarious!

houghtam
03-10-2013, 06:41 AM
I wonder if oarsman and riggers in navies around the world felt replaced when steam power made oars and sails obsolete.

baja
03-10-2013, 08:19 AM
Yes! I said replace, and I meant it. There will be fewer soldiers on the front line because of what drones are capable of, as well as the smaller cost of resources.

You, still stuck in the 50s, thought I meant the robots that use old people's medicine for fuel, didn't you?

Hilarious!

Trouble is you will have some kid that grew up on Pop Tarts and video kill games at the controls.

baja
03-10-2013, 08:57 AM
(CNN) -- The pilot glanced outside his cockpit and froze. He blinked hard and looked again, hoping it was just a mirage. But his co-pilot stared at the same horrible vision.
"My God, this is a nightmare," the co-pilot said.
"He's going to destroy us," the pilot agreed.
The men were looking at a gray German Messerschmitt fighter hovering just three feet off their wingtip. It was five days before Christmas 1943, and the fighter had closed in on their crippled American B-17 bomber for the kill.
The B-17 pilot, Charles Brown, was a 21-year-old West Virginia farm boy on his first combat mission. His bomber had been shot to pieces by swarming fighters, and his plane was alone in the skies above Germany. Half his crew was wounded, and the tail gunner was dead, his blood frozen in icicles over the machine guns.
But when Brown and his co-pilot, Spencer "Pinky" Luke, looked at the fighter pilot again, something odd happened. The German didn't pull the trigger. He nodded at Brown instead. What happened next was one of the most remarkable acts of chivalry recorded during World War II. Years later, Brown would track down his would-be executioner for a reunion that reduced both men to tears.
Listen: A bond between enemies
Living by the code
People love to hear war stories about great generals or crack troops such as Seal Team 6, the Navy unit that killed Osama bin Laden. But there is another side of war that's seldom explored: Why do some soldiers risk their lives to save their enemies and, in some cases, develop a deep bond with them that outlives war?
And are such acts of chivalry obsolete in an age of drone strikes and terrorism?

Charles Brown was on his first combat mission during World War II when he met an enemy unlike any other.
Those are the kinds of questions Brown's story raises. His encounter with the German fighter pilot is beautifully told in a New York Times best-selling book, "A Higher Call." The book explains how that aerial encounter reverberated in both men's lives for more than 50 years.
"The war left them in turmoil," says Adam Makos, who wrote the book with Larry Alexander. "When they found each other, they found peace."
Their story is extraordinary, but it's not unique. Union and Confederate troops risked their lives to aid one another during the Civil War. British and German troops gathered for post-war reunions; some even vacationed together after World War II. One renowned American general traveled back to Vietnam to meet the man who almost wiped out his battalion, and the two men hugged and prayed together.
What is this bond that surfaces between enemies during and after battle?
It's called the warrior's code, say soldiers and military scholars. It's shaped cultures as diverse as the Vikings, the Samurai, the Romans and Native Americans, says Shannon E. French, author of "Code of the Warrior."
The code is designed to protect the victor, as well as the vanquished, French says.
"People think of the rules of war primarily as a way to protect innocent civilians from being victims of atrocities," she says. "In a much more profound sense, the rules are there to protect the people doing the actual fighting."
The code is designed to prevent soldiers from becoming monsters. Butchering civilians, torturing prisoners, desecrating the enemies' bodies -- are all battlefield behaviors that erode a soldier's humanity, French says.
The code is ancient as civilization itself. In Homer's epic poem, "The Iliad," the Greek hero Achilles breaks the code when his thirst for vengeance leads him to desecrate the body of his slain foe, the Trojan hero Hector.
He's going to destroy us!
Charles Brown, B-17 bomber pilot
Most warrior cultures share one belief, French says:
"There is something worse than death, and one of those things is to completely lose your humanity."
The code is still needed today, French says.
Thousands of U.S. soldiers returning from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder. Some have seen, and have done, things that are unfathomable.
A study of Vietnam veterans showed that those who felt as if they had participated in dishonorable behavior during the war or saw the Vietnamese as subhuman experienced more post-traumatic stress disorder, French says.
Drone warfare represents a new threat to soldiers' humanity, French says.
The Pentagon recently announced it would award a new Distinguished Warfare Medal to soldiers who operate drones and launch cyberattacks. The medal would rank above the Bronze Star and Purple Heart, two medals earned in combat.
At least 17,000 people have signed an online petition protesting the medal. The petition says awarding medals to soldiers who wage war via remote control was an "injustice" to those who risked their lives in combat.
Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta defended the new medal at a February news conference.
"I've seen firsthand how modern tools, like remotely piloted platforms and cybersystems, have changed the way wars are fought," Panetta says. "And they've given our men and women the ability to engage the enemy and change the course of battle, even from afar."
Still, critics ask, is there any honor in killing an enemy by remote control?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/09/living/higher-call-military-chivalry/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Dukes
03-10-2013, 08:58 AM
Trouble is you will have some kid that grew up on Pop Tarts and video kill games at the controls.

Thats a ringing endorsment of our troops if I've ever seen one.

cutthemdown
03-10-2013, 01:48 PM
Yes! I said replace, and I meant it. There will be fewer soldiers on the front line because of what drones are capable of, as well as the smaller cost of resources.

You, still stuck in the 50s, thought I meant the robots that use old people's medicine for fuel, didn't you?

Hilarious!

Your statement implies the vast majority get replaced. When you say point blank i want to see the front line troops replaced that is what you are saying. Not my fault you said something stupid again.

baja
03-10-2013, 02:47 PM
Thats a ringing endorsment of our troops if I've ever seen one.

That's just it with remote controlled drones the training will be very different for the "new soldier" They will not have the experience of a combat soldier. By definition they will be detached for the horror they are inflicting

Read post 27

Fedaykin
03-10-2013, 11:34 PM
Does anyone really believe they aren't planning to have automated drones ASAP?

Right now drones suffer from a huge Achilles heel, the need for a satellite uplink and the associated:

* Interface Lag. It can take seconds for a command, even a simple one like a turn, to reach a drone via satellite relay -- and there's no way to overcome that lag without developing the ability to warp space and time.

* Vulnerability to enemy interference/remote takeover.

Remote piloted drones would get their asses kicked by piloted planes, no matter the numbers advantage and g-force handling abilities.

No doubt they already have fully automated/AI versions in at least the testing phase.

houghtam
03-11-2013, 08:28 AM
Does anyone really believe they aren't planning to have automated drones ASAP?

Right now drones suffer from a huge Achilles heel, the need for a satellite uplink and the associated:

* Interface Lag. It can take seconds for a command, even a simple one like a turn, to reach a drone via satellite relay -- and there's no way to overcome that lag without developing the ability to warp space and time.

* Vulnerability to enemy interference/remote takeover.

Remote piloted drones would get their asses kicked by piloted planes, no matter the numbers advantage and g-force handling abilities.

No doubt they already have fully automated/AI versions in at least the testing phase.

Nope.

Cut doesn't think it's possible.

Something about there not being enough Viagra and Centrum Silver to power them, I think.

barryr
03-11-2013, 10:15 AM
Drones replacing troops? Hard to see how that ever improves civilian casualties, not that seems to matter anymore to most of the media and anti-war groups since 2009.

Arkie
03-11-2013, 10:35 AM
Trouble is you will have some kid that grew up on Pop Tarts and video kill games at the controls.

http://newswire.kulmun.be/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/drone_pilot_1719505.jpg

Rohirrim
03-11-2013, 12:28 PM
I guess Panetta now wants to give drone "pilots" a medal that will more distinguished than the Bronze Star or Purple Heart. Cool, eh?

http://www.defense.gov/news/DistinguishedWarfareMedalMemo.pdf

nyuk nyuk
03-22-2013, 08:30 AM
The REALITY that it is only a matter of time before someone weaponizes one for personal use in the United States is downright terrifying. You can guarantee the second amendment rights folks will be out for that en force.

Can anyone get more retarded than this? :rofl::~ohyah!:

nyuk nyuk
03-22-2013, 08:36 AM
Drones replacing troops? Hard to see how that ever improves civilian casualties, not that seems to matter anymore to most of the media and anti-war groups since 2009.

Bingo.

Civilian deaths mattered in the Gulf War, but not the bombing of Yugoslavia.

You've got it right, buddy.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9FN33NTMpLU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zf84gioy8hU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>