I was waiting for this response.
I am not a pacifist. By and large, I respect and admire members of the US armed forces. However, I strongly disagree with their utilization in this policy.
What’s the alternative? War, which causes more of the same damage? “Slaughtering innocents” isn’t the goal, it’s an unintended consequence of violence.
The OP addressed this by saying drone strikes are “cowardly,” if that gives you any idea of the sentiment. Tu quoque though it may be, I’d respond that terrorism is cowardly: terrorists know what they’re doing and they expect to be targeted; their victims are just going to school or work or church. Drone strikes aim for combatants and cause less damage than open warfare.
In this chain of weapons thousands of years in development, what makes this particular link particularly repugnant to you?
I agree it’s troubling, but when I consider my family being killed, the trouble seems insignificant.
Collateral damage is a commonly used term. I don’t mean the destruction of buildings, I’m referring specifically to the killing of innocents, and I didn’t intend to whitewash that in any way.
At some point I’d weigh the difference in the death between action and inaction. If the death of one innocent cannot be avoided to prevent the deaths of many more innocents then I’d have to authorize that were I in such a position.
I disagree with this specifically. How could they have justified 9/11 as a way to prevent the deaths of innocents?
I also disagree with this generally. I don’t believe in these moral equivalency arguments at all. Where each party has been wrong, it has been wrong without regard to the relative moral difference or equivalence of the other.
It’s also tough to argue the issues of the specific drone strikes. The accurate information about the hows and whys of these strikes is not readily available. I would seriously doubt all of them are morally justifiable. As stated before, I think it’s a necessary policy and it can be used morally (or shall we say with the minimal level of immorality possible), but I can’t really justify our actual usage.
It’s not true everywhere, but if you can get a drone there, you can pretty much get a special ops helicopter loaded with Delta Force or SEALs.
Arresting/snatching thse people, if they are truly great threats, would be highly preferable. Then take them to…uh oh, wait. Gitmo? A ‘black site’ in a third, cooperating country?
Nope. Much easier to just launch a missile from a drone and not have to deal with it.
Your family is not going to be killed by terrorists. Talk about insignificant; there’s a better chance of your family being killed in independent car crashes.
I have no issue with drone strikes as a war making methodology.
I do wonder about the “War on Terror” and I have been vocally opposed to all of our military activities going back to the first Gulf War. My exception was the attacks on the Al Q. training camps in Afghanistan, but I would not have sent troops in and gone for regime change.
I see zero reason that I should not use the full technical capabilities of my nation when fighting. You don’t have the industrial base to manage drone strikes - tough.
ONE of the goals should be to minimize civilian casualties - but there is no way to eliminate them without simply giving up on fighting completely. Since there are still people who our nation has decided need killing - there will continue to be civilian casualties.
Did you mean when Og dropped the rock on Thag?
I’m sort of skeptical of this claim given the range and speed of drones and the issue of military bases.
I do not fetishize the democratic process. Resistance movements around the world have traditionally used non-democratic forms of governance and organization to further their goals. As a matter of fact, I don’t recall the First Continental Congress polling all residents of the 13 colonies in a binding referendum to determine if they would like to pursue a war of revolution.
Our drone bases are operated out of friendly countries near the targets. Those helicopters are aerially refueled. We’re already in someone elses airspace; one more aircraft in the form of a tanker wouldn’t hurt.
Range and time on target is a big deal for drones, speed not so much. The max speed for a Predator is 135 mph. Max speed for a Blackhawk is 185 mph.
Alright. But you are now putting additional lives at risk and raising the stakes with the country where the strike is taking place. Is that worth it?
The chance of your family being killed is essentially zero. And killing innocent people like we are is just going to make more enemies; it doesn’t accomplish anything except indulge our collective bloodlust. It won’t protect anyone, and if anything it will encourage terrorism.
Well, in bin Laden’s own words, he makes reference to the death of innocents in 1, iii; 1, f; 2, d.
No question that is it, in my mind.
The lives that are at stake are the lives of military personnel who have chosen to serve. What’s more, they’ve chosen to be special operators, and this is kind of what they do.
Reverse the question; which is a preferable outcome:
Drone strike takes out target, but also two children
or
Tactical raid takes out target, but two American Delta Force are lost.
Neither.
Because of the arrogance and hypocrisy involved, and the fact that it is ongoing.
I also think that the impressment of American sailors by the Royal Navy 200 years ago was deplorable, but that’s not really an urgent concern nowadays.
Do you have some evidence for this? I’m hoping against hope that maybe at some point people will consider acknowledging that there’s no evidence for it. Are terrorist attacks up since these things started? From where I’m sitting, Al Qaeda is in horrible shape because a lot of its leaders have been killed and its recent attempted strikes in the West have been totally incompetent, and the drone strikes are not the full reason but they should not be discounted as part of it.
Their lives can’t be treated cheaply, though. If there is a better option than getting them killed, that option has to be considered. And sending in SEALs does not guarantee that other people don’t get killed.
I think we’re due for an explanation of the cowardice and arrogance and hypocrisy already. Or you could stop using such loaded and unsupported terms and argue the facts.
Yes, one of the big problems with the drone strikes is that they are being conducted on behalf of the very nebulous War on Terror, not an actual nation state. There have always been groups that opposed the US and would like to harm us, we have dealt with them without bombing innocent civilians in the past. What are the limits of the War on Terror, who can NOT be targeted?
Think of it in the opposite direction. Suppose Mexico were to decide that terrorists in the United States wanted to harm Mexican citizens and started doing drone strikes in California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas? Would we sit back and go, “Well ya got us there, buddy! Good for the goose, good for the gander!”
You know we’d have tanks in Mexico City in short order. So the drone strikes are just “Might makes right” and to hell with the anybody else.
That is one of the more offensive posts I’ve ever seen on this site and that’s saying quite a lot.
Which is the same thing that would happen if Mexico sent manned aircraft or infantry brigades into the US. Just because it is a drone doesn’t make it different.