Senate Droning On

I think the point is that if there is review, there would, theoretically, be greater caution taken in carrying out strikes, knowing that it would always be reviewed.

The simple appeal of the drones is that people can be killed in these countries without American lives being directly risked. The long term results are not, I think, in the calculations at all.

 

I certainly hope that's not the case. The point of drones should be to facilitate the long-term strategic defeat of al-qaeda, not stack up as many corpses as possible.

 

It's a combination of lives not being risked and money, along with drones not being anywhere near as publically prominent as long-term occupations are.

 

I suspect that we all overestimate the sophistication and nuance of US policy on al-qeada and that stacking up as many corpses as possible is actually the official operational plan to facilitate its long-term strategic defeat.

 

I just have a hard time buying that cartoon image, though, especially with Barack Obama as the architect of the whole thing. As I've said numerous times, I don't have any problem with President Obama reneging on much of the lofty rhetoric of Candidate Obama, since the reasons for the transformation are obvious. 1)He now has access to all of the intel, and 2)It's his responsibility now if something actually does happen. But the robustness of the drone program goes beyond that; the problem isn't that it's necessarily unprincipled, it's that it seems stupid. The objections I raised here are hardly novel or sophisticated. Many people have spontaneously observed them.

 

I'm a couple months late in noticing this, but Malala Yousafzai herself confronted Obama regarding the drone strikes. What an extraordinarily courageous thing to do for a 16 year old invited guest to the White House.

 

Anyone else see the reports of DARPA testing the launching of drones from submarines? At some point, would that render traditional aircraft carriers obsolete?

 

I think it depends on how much you want to do remotely, and how much power they're comfortable giving the drones.

 

Drones will probably make soldiers and most of the navy obsolete eventually. Why put soldiers on the ground, when you can blow things up undetectable and from a very safe distance? The only reason then to have soldiers would be for occupation, or other military missions where the objective is not to destroy or kill.

 

I have an idea with smaller helicopter drones. Hook up a thermal imaging camera and fly them into a burning building to find victims and a long with a map of the building use it to digitally map out the fire for more efficient fire fighting. You could even after finding a victim use a gun mount on one to blow up a lock and bring an air line to the victim so the firefighters can find the victim faster and the victim can have a some fresh air as well. Or you could mount an oxygen tank onto a helicopter drone, fly it into the fire and drop it to the victims. You can leave them with vital oxygen allowing the fire fighters time to get the victim out alive.