UAV Predator / Reaper target destruction GCS

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

22/06/2023, 10:15 AM Syklone - ..... hi

18/02/2023, 07:10 PM Damit - https://discord.gg/fYqDFYx

18/02/2023, 07:09 PM Damit - join us on Discord https://discord.com/inv... ite/fYqDFYx

29/11/2022, 12:19 PM BoHiCa - YESSSSSS

26/10/2022, 04:27 PM Victor9-5 - yooooooooooooo!

21/05/2021, 06:19 AM DonutKing - First post

28/08/2020, 08:39 AM Damit - its because we are all on discord now mrx

29/07/2020, 07:42 PM MrX - Its a bit dead round here

29/07/2020, 07:42 PM MrX - Anybody playing COD 

26/03/2020, 10:52 AM Epsoma - Hey Team. Locked down in self isolation. Hope you all are good.

View All

[Z00111111]

It always puts me off balance when Cowcar or Donut make a serious comment without twisting it into something odd.

I suppose an argument could be "how is it fair if the person doing the killing is safe in a bunker down the road from their home" but an argument along those lines would make attack helicopters and naval bombardments a bad thing, since they can engage targets from a distance that renders them invisible to the naked eye.

If anything drones are a good way of killing people. If the pilots find it easier to disconnect from the killing it would reduce the post traumatic stress. Why have more victims on the winning side than you have to?

The only problem I see is one that applies to any form of combat, correctly identifying targets. It happens to all levels of technological warfare, from sticks and stones to guided missiles, people make mistakes and kill innocent civilians after accidentally identifying them as an enemy.

[mandatory05]

It always puts me off balance when Cowcar or Donut make a serious comment without twisting it into something odd.

I suppose an argument could be "how is it fair if the person doing the killing is safe in a bunker down the road from their home" but an argument along those lines would make attack helicopters and naval bombardments a bad thing, since they can engage targets from a distance that renders them invisible to the naked eye.

If anything drones are a good way of killing people. If the pilots find it easier to disconnect from the killing it would reduce the post traumatic stress. Why have more victims on the winning side than you have to?

The only problem I see is one that applies to any form of combat, correctly identifying targets. It happens to all levels of technological warfare, from sticks and stones to guided missiles, people make mistakes and kill innocent civilians after accidentally identifying them as an enemy.

When ending someone's life becomes non-traumatic or non-stressful I'd argue that humans are no longer fighting wars, but observing machines do the work for them. Part of the idea of having an army fight a war, and not a civilian population, would be that those individuals will endure the physical and psychological hardships for us, hence why it is very respectful to be a member of the armed forces of your country. These drones seperate the members of the armed forces from the technologically adept civilians who will operate them.

I'd also argue that equating drones to attack helicopters and such is incorrect. The difference between being in a helicopter and operating a drone is the cost, one mistake in a helicopter and you could lose your life and your mates life, and also firing on civilians would have a direct impact on you and the way you operate, because you have to go back to your base away from civilisation, and your family. Pressing a button on a control pad in some military base back home would reduce the psychological cost, but that isn't a good thing. Isn't making the individual empathise with the situation important, and not trying to disconnect the operator from the warzone so that killing becomes just another activity.

One good thing though is that people don't have to put their lives on the line in order to perform reconnaissance or simple hit and run missions. Less lives lost = good, but there are other issues that are somewhat important aswell.

/end rant

[Z00111111]

The attack helicopter analogy was regarding the safety of the operator. These days it's usually one heavily armed force fighting militants with AK47s, rocket propelled grenades, and glass bottles filled with petrol. The chances of an attack helicopter being taken down in combat by the enemy is tiny.

You state "Less lives lost = good". I agree. That's an advantage of drones. A life can be lost without death. Some of the "winners" of war suffer worse than the death and injuries of the losers. The psychological damage of warfare takes the lives of the living. It's probably worse for some families to get back a permanently traumatized soldier than a flag draped pine box. For some the suffering only ceases with death.

If disconnecting by flying a drone from a computer saves people from permanent breakdown then it's a good thing. I doubt there will be more or less killing with drones than other methods, but there will be less lives lost.

Although I do agree that killing without any kind of remorse is a terrible thing.

[cowcar]

So my question would be come: What distance is ok for a weapon system for you Mandy? Firing Cruise missiles would have an even greater disconnect between the people pressing the button and the results of the action. So they should be banned? Glide bombs? Missiles in general have a long range, so presumably they should be banned?
I am also not following the argument about safety? It is a war, and as Patton said, "Let's Make The Other Poor, Dumb Son Of A Bitch Die For His Country". The aim should do this with the least risk to yourselves as possible. Anything else is basically negligent.

[cowcar]

It always puts me off balance when Cowcar or Donut make a serious comment without twisting it into something odd.

Lol,... don't worry, usual situation will be restored soon

[mandatory05]

So my question would be come: What distance is ok for a weapon system for you Mandy? Firing Cruise missiles would have an even greater disconnect between the people pressing the button and the results of the action. So they should be banned? Glide bombs? Missiles in general have a long range, so presumably they should be banned?

I'm just of the opinion that these types of weapons (drones) create a situation where the lives of others are being devalued so much that we can reduce the psychological impact to a ridiculously small amount. Taking a life should be significant, and hence the impact should be large to an extent. Cruise missiles and the like are usually used to take out high-value targets, where drones can be used on a more regular and unregulated basis. I'm also worried about the training these people undergo, and whether the operators are properly trained. Also we know the US's history with effectively executing drone strikes, so expect even more collateral damage.

I am also not following the argument about safety? It is a war, and as Patton said, "Let's Make The Other Poor, Dumb Son Of A Bitch Die For His Country". The aim should do this with the least risk to yourselves as possible. Anything else is basically negligent.

I agree with this here, I don't know what you are on about though.

[Syklone]

Presidents, generals, dictators, politicians, all issue orders to kill others. These guys are far away also and don't seem to mind doing the orders to kill. Whether it be with a drone or with a knife in the back. They may argue that they prefer the drone as its safer for them and their countries personnel though instead of direct conflict.

Which is better? face to face with a foe or from opposite ends of the globe?