Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/24/08 06:08 PM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 11/24/08 07:53 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 11/23/08 09:07 PM, XaosLegend wrote: based on your logic here civilians are ALWAYS A LEGITIMATE TARGET in war because civilians ALWAYS SUPPORT THEIR TROOPS WITH THEIR ECONOMY AND MEDICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

When they're on their home turf, if they aren't friendly, then yeah.. I guess pretty much everyone trying to kill you is fair game. You understand me well.

I think i understand. Bombing remote villages with PILOTLESS DRONES on the off-chance that the villagers are aiding and abetting an insurgant group, is like killing all first-born males of a city on the rumor that one boy called Jesus is destined to lead a revolt against you.

Yeah I suppose it is if you can't distinguish between prophecy and reality.

What can't a multi-optical drone do that a piloted bomber can?

The off chance of something is an opaque term. Are you saying Operation Rolling Thunder was based on iffy and non-definitive intelligence?

Youre basically saying the twin towers in 9/11 were valid military targets because they are the civilians that support the military industrial complex in the US that targets middle east interests.

They would've been valid military targets if they were targetted militarily. Of course, you can't militarily attack America because then you'd die.

Bin Ladin and his ilk were trained by 1 super-power (America) how to defeat another super-power (Russia) without a formal militry machine. Pretty much that means taking pages out of Sun Tzu's book on the Art of War; "..use your enemies strength".. ie. absolute air superiority.

First lines on the book, the King's two favorite concubine's are beheaded, against the king's explicit orders, by Tzu, as an example of how war orders from the general carried weight even for a troop of whores. If his orders are clear and not obeyed, then it is the fault of the commanders.

The villagers forced to help the occupying VC were caught between a rock and a hard place, with no place to play both sides.

At 11/24/08 06:26 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

When they're on their home turf, if they aren't friendly, then yeah.. I guess pretty much everyone trying to kill you is fair game. You understand me well.

I think i understand. Bombing remote villages with PILOTLESS DRONES on the off-chance that the villagers are aiding and abetting an insurgant group, is like killing all first-born males of a city on the rumor that one boy called Jesus is destined to lead a revolt against you.

Yeah I suppose it is if you can't distinguish between prophecy and reality.

What can't a multi-optical drone do that a piloted bomber can?

Staying ON topic? Well it removes all guilt and potential "war-criminal" responsibility from the battlefield. It demonstrates "absolute air superiority" in no uncertain terms.

It shows the civilian populous of the country how remarkably callous the "evil enemy" is.. flying these robots around bombing innocent villagers. (like I'm sure that Afghan villagers are regular experts on American military optic systems and computer controlled satellite surveillence systems)

They would've been valid military targets if they were targetted militarily. Of course, you can't militarily attack America because then you'd die.

Bin Ladin and his ilk were trained by 1 super-power (America) how to defeat another super-power (Russia) without a formal militry machine. Pretty much that means taking pages out of Sun Tzu's book on the Art of War; "..use your enemies strength".. ie. absolute air superiority.

First lines on the book, the King's two favorite concubine's are beheaded, against the king's explicit orders, by Tzu, as an example of how war orders from the general carried weight even for a troop of whores. If his orders are clear and not obeyed, then it is the fault of the commanders.

The villagers forced to help the occupying VC were caught between a rock and a hard place, with no place to play both sides.

Just as the taliban warlords likely order villagers to feed and support them, or else face having their village become the next "anonymous tipoff" for the Americans aerial assault.

At 11/24/08 07:11 PM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 11/24/08 06:26 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

When they're on their home turf, if they aren't friendly, then yeah.. I guess pretty much everyone trying to kill you is fair game. You understand me well.

I think i understand. Bombing remote villages with PILOTLESS DRONES on the off-chance that the villagers are aiding and abetting an insurgant group, is like killing all first-born males of a city on the rumor that one boy called Jesus is destined to lead a revolt against you.

Yeah I suppose it is if you can't distinguish between prophecy and reality.

What can't a multi-optical drone do that a piloted bomber can?

Staying ON topic? Well it removes all guilt and potential "war-criminal" responsibility from the battlefield. It demonstrates "absolute air superiority" in no uncertain terms.

If by "removes all responsibility from the battlefield" you actually meant "removed from direct physical contact with the target, then I'd have to agree. If you just wanted to make a point that armies fight with their strongest assets, then I'd also have to agree.

People are an invaluable asset, no doubt, dredd.

It shows the civilian populous of the country how remarkably callous the "evil enemy" is.. flying these robots around bombing innocent villagers. (like I'm sure that Afghan villagers are regular experts on American military optic systems and computer controlled satellite surveillence systems)\

I'm really ignorant when it comes to how Afghan villagers have any justification for knowledge of our weapons and targetting systems.

Just because the enemy doesn't understand the shiny bird drops bombs when you shoot at it doesn't mean the bombs dropped aren't understood.

They would've been valid military targets if they were targetted militarily. Of course, you can't militarily attack America because then you'd die.

Bin Ladin and his ilk were trained by 1 super-power (America) how to defeat another super-power (Russia) without a formal militry machine. Pretty much that means taking pages out of Sun Tzu's book on the Art of War; "..use your enemies strength".. ie. absolute air superiority.

First lines on the book, the King's two favorite concubine's are beheaded, against the king's explicit orders, by Tzu, as an example of how war orders from the general carried weight even for a troop of whores. If his orders are clear and not obeyed, then it is the fault of the commanders.

The villagers forced to help the occupying VC were caught between a rock and a hard place, with no place to play both sides.

Just as the taliban warlords likely order villagers to feed and support them, or else face having their village become the next "anonymous tipoff" for the Americans aerial assault.

You just nailed what war is on the head; a choice.

According to the rules of war, any facility (church, hospital, ect) being used for purposes other than what those facilities were built for (i.e. using a church as a command center) is a legitimate target.

At 11/24/08 08:37 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: People are an invaluable asset, no doubt, dredd.

And drones suggest that in future wars, robots will fight robots, and the side with the cheapest tech will win.

You just nailed what war is on the head; a choice.

(...a low aerial confetti drop over a lone starving goat)

???

War is about defending your country. America will eventually back out, just like Russia did and call it a victory. The region will remain wartorn by poverty. I've been watching these same wars since the mid 70s so i don't see America's high-tech military solutions achieving anything but slowly bankrupting the American economy as we're now witnessing.

At 11/25/08 02:39 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: War is about defending your country. America will eventually back out, just like Russia did and call it a victory. The region will remain wartorn by poverty. I've been watching these same wars since the mid 70s so i don't see America's high-tech military solutions achieving anything but slowly bankrupting the American economy as we're now witnessing.

You mean the Democrats might actually have a reason to cut that defense spending? Oh...this just opens this topic up to a whole other stream of nasty now...

At 11/25/08 02:53 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: You mean the Democrats might actually have a reason to cut that defense spending? Oh...this just opens this topic up to a whole other stream of nasty now...

..it's really a thinly disguised "what if McCain had won?" topic. *shrugs*

At 11/25/08 02:39 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 11/24/08 08:37 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: People are an invaluable asset, no doubt, dredd.

And drones suggest that in future wars, robots will fight robots, and the side with the cheapest tech will win.

What's cheaper tech than a bullet, dredd? I'll go out on a limb and say that since '45, nuclear weapons are the wave of the future.

Look at what the powers of the world seek, and it's not fancy flyware.

You just nailed what war is on the head; a choice.

(...a low aerial confetti drop over a lone starving goat)

???

That heli wasn't unmanned, and it's not going anywhere. The rise of the machines you foresee is faulty to the point of uselessness: manpower will ALWAYS power war on this planet until we fuck ourselves over by ruining our habitat.

A mild point, but one better than the foretelling of drone warfare skirting war crimes accountability.

War is about defending your country. America will eventually back out, just like Russia did and call it a victory.

Well, what were the goals entering the country? Rooting out terrorism wherever it grows, IIRC. "A war on terrorism" where even Russia and America can agree on a common enemy. War is about jurisdiction.

The region will remain wartorn by poverty. I've been watching these same wars since the mid 70s so i don't see America's high-tech military solutions achieving anything but slowly bankrupting the American economy as we're now witnessing.

Poverty only exists because there's too many people living where they shouldn't.

At 11/25/08 08:25 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 11/25/08 02:39 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

People are an invaluable asset, no doubt, dredd.

And drones suggest that in future wars, robots will fight robots, and the side with the cheapest tech will win.

What's cheaper tech than a bullet, dredd?

The rise of the machines you foresee is faulty to the point of uselessness: manpower will ALWAYS power war on this planet until we fuck ourselves over by ruining our habitat.

Why does America use drones again? Oh yes, it's cheaper politically (the media don't film another Stars & Stripes draped coffin returning home), and it's cheaper finanically, cos despite having the most sophisticated heli's on the planet, they still have a tendency to be brought down, (yes, sometimes even by a farmers bullet)

The "rise of the machines" exists. Why do you think that Yamaha were instructed by the Japanese government to stop manufacturing their remote controlled "toy" helicopters in China? Precisely because they had weaponizable features. Yes, American drone may have advanced optics, and expensive navigation, and cost a million bucks a piece, but they could be brought down by an existing toy made in China. I put my money on the toy. Or at least a toy with a gun on it.

Poverty only exists because there's too many people living where they shouldn't.

Lol. Are we talking about Wall St. or Afghanistan? (crazy times indeed)

Shit, our country has been taking in Afghan refugees for decades. That's really the 3rd choice isn't it. Get the fuck out of dodge! Problem is that there are simply too many refugees in the world already. It has a globally destabalizing effect. People eventually become "anti-immigrant", and then the cycle repeats itself...

ANY BODY REMEMBER WHY WE WENT INTO NAM?

Not all caps

At 11/26/08 01:23 AM, BoredClock wrote: ANY BODY REMEMBER WHY WE WENT INTO NAM?

Not all caps

Domino Theory?

Either way, immigration and jurisdiction are closely linked.

War isn't about infallibility, either.

At 11/26/08 07:53 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 11/26/08 01:23 AM, BoredClock wrote: ANY BODY REMEMBER WHY WE WENT INTO NAM?

Not all caps

Domino Theory?

Either way, immigration and jurisdiction are closely linked.

War isn't about infallibility, either.

Yes we went into Nam the same reason why we went into Korea. We didn't want Asia falling to Communism.

At 11/25/08 01:52 PM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 11/25/08 08:25 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 11/25/08 02:39 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

People are an invaluable asset, no doubt, dredd.

And drones suggest that in future wars, robots will fight robots, and the side with the cheapest tech will win.

What's cheaper tech than a bullet, dredd?

The rise of the machines you foresee is faulty to the point of uselessness: manpower will ALWAYS power war on this planet until we fuck ourselves over by ruining our habitat.

Why does America use drones again?

It's another facet of America's arsenal, deployable in advantageous scenarios.

You don't send an elite SEAL team to swim up on desert-dwellers and throw rocks if you're smart enough to build an unmanned drone capable of delivering a payload.

Oh yes, it's cheaper politically (the media don't film another Stars & Stripes draped coffin returning home), and it's cheaper finanically, cos despite having the most sophisticated heli's on the planet, they still have a tendency to be brought down, (yes, sometimes even by a farmers bullet)

Yep, and since heli's can deliver a personell payload while unmanned drones can't, you really shouldn't try to equate the two as if they share specific job duties/titles.

The "rise of the machines" exists. Why do you think that Yamaha were instructed by the Japanese government to stop manufacturing their remote controlled "toy" helicopters in China?

American pressure?

Precisely because they had weaponizable features. Yes, American drone may have advanced optics, and expensive navigation, and cost a million bucks a piece, but they could be brought down by an existing toy made in China. I put my money on the toy. Or at least a toy with a gun on it.

That would be an act of war. Technology will always exist, if the argument you're trying to make is that I believe unmanned drones are the apex of technologically-inspired weapons of war.

Also, you believe the US military hasn't explored the possiblities of RC weapons?

Poverty only exists because there's too many people living where they shouldn't.

Lol. Are we talking about Wall St. or Afghanistan? (crazy times indeed)

Both, actually. And Washington, DC, too.

There are too many refugees in the world because freedom isn't worth dying for in most parts of the world. That, and apparently America and it's sparse allies are the only ones willing to fight, successfully, for the cause.

At 11/26/08 08:29 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: People are an invaluable asset, no doubt, dredd.

No doubt. The 911 attack was significant because they were commercial airlines with passengers, and the authority to shoot down a passenger plane wasn't forthcoming. Somewhere in the chain of command there was a critical delay in making such a ghastly decision. This goes to show how much the value of people fluctuates greatly under very extreme circumstances.

Technology will always exist, if the argument you're trying to make is that I believe unmanned drones are the apex of technologically-inspired weapons of war.

Also, you believe the US military hasn't explored the possiblities of RC weapons?

Oh sure, a manned heli might even fly with a swarm of RC helis and function as a hive defending the "queen" once deployed, but they would still need complicated re-docking capability, or else have to be primed with relatively certain self-destuct mechanism. More simply, a jamming technology could stop an enemy's RC signal, and so on and so forth. So i don't doubt America will continue to lead in this field. I'm just saying that the continued trend in recent wars in particular is towards small remote unmanned devices (IEDs for example) or cheap opportunistic attacks (ok, suicide bombers are "manned" but it's still a "cheap" substitute smartbomb), and drones are just an example of this trend on the American side also.

But as always, geo-location, transportation, and supply-chain costs are more significant factors, compared to those of the poorer defending forces. The same is true in every war. But America's air superiority will be ultimately be un-done by a low-tech solution of some sort. Who knows, maybe something more like a laser weapon. Anyway price is a critical factor in unmanned warfare in particular. The smaller and cheaper the systems become, then the greater possiblility that the tech will able to be replicated or reused. A motor, a battery, a schematic off the net, a gyro. Simply put, it's not rocket science.