I Find Drone Strikes Intellectually Unsatisfying.

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Dayton3, Sep 8, 2021.

  1. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,442
    Likes Received:
    6,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    While I support the drone strike today that killed the ISIS-k "planner" and I really don't like endangering our military people, I find killing our enemies with a drone strike intellectually unsatisfying.

    Someone suggested that I should've said "intellectually" instead of "emotionally"
     
  2. cristiansoldier

    cristiansoldier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    5,022
    Likes Received:
    3,437
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't understand. What is the cause of this dissatisfaction? Are you against drones because of the risk they pose to non combatants? Do you think dropping a Seal team in and killing them would be better? What is the problem with drones?
     
  3. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,442
    Likes Received:
    6,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think when humans kill other humans they should be more "up close and personal" so to speak. At least without endangering themselves too much .
     
    Josh77 likes this.
  4. cristiansoldier

    cristiansoldier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    5,022
    Likes Received:
    3,437
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think that is the American military strategy. The goal is full spectrum dominance through complete superiority. "Up close and personal" would probably be a last resort.
     
  5. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,442
    Likes Received:
    6,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Again, I've said that killing did NOT Have to be "up close and personal".
     
  6. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,135
    Likes Received:
    4,905
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Aircraft in general killing other humans hasn't been "up close and personal" in nearly 5 decades. Dropping a JDAM on somebody from the comfort of a climate controlled jet cockpit isn't exactly personal either and isn't much further off than a drone strike.

    Dropping ordinance from a Predator drone is about the same as dropping it from an F-16. Neither one of those "pilots" (drone operators are not pilots regardless of what the Air Force says) is actually going to "see" the whites of the eyes of the enemy they just turned into red mist. The closest "up close and personal" you'll get from aviation comes from attack pilots, A-10s or attack helo folks. And even with them it's not exactly anything resembling a "fair" fight to where the pilot can say that he "courageously defeated his enemy in skilled combat". It's more like the pilot sat in a climate controlled armored aircraft and plucked people off as they ran in horror with them being able to do absolutely nothing at all about it...

    Up close and personal is for the ground grunts who even though they have battle armor are still relatively "equal" to the enemy they are facing in skilled combat. A pure ground firefight is won by tactical skill or weapons or numbers even if one side is in cloth rags and the other is wearing armored plates. You get shot with that battle armor on and your ass is still going out of the fight in most cases.
     

Share This Page