3
3
0
http://news.yahoo.com/cowardly-murder-ex-drone-operators-speak-jobs-001824335.html?bcmt= [login to see] 56-7f85d103-2b66-4d2a-8281-e1a30493ef10_0000bb [login to see] [login to see] 0000-f9457db8-4f23-4e58-83af-d819ac1b470b&bcmt_s=u
Drones
15W: Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operator
Air Force
150U: Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations Technician
1U0X1: Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Sensor Operator
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 66
29
29
0
No different than launching a missile from a ship or plane. They're a good way to reach out and touch someone.
(29)
(0)
16
16
0
Over the last several years there has been an attempt to change the use of the word Coward (et al) into something it isn't.
1) a person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things.
2) excessively afraid of danger or pain.
3) (of an animal) depicted with the tail between the hind legs.
We do not use drones because we are afraid of danger or unpleasant things. We use them because they are pragmatically better, and they are more risk adverse than doing it in the traditional way. Just like we use oven mitts when reaching into a stove. We would not call someone cowardly for when using the best available tool reduces risk.
We are not afraid of pain. The usage does reduce risk, as above, but again that is not the primary reason we do it.
Finally, we do not do it to retreat, the classic depiction of a tail covering ones nethers. We do it to advance.
So no, drones are not "cowardly" in and of themselves. They are a tool. Our use of the tool is generally not cowardly either, but pragmatic and risk adverse. Even our philosophy around drones tends to be neutral in this regards. We fly in the open. We have public policies. We advertise. It's hard to call it "cowardly."
1) a person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things.
2) excessively afraid of danger or pain.
3) (of an animal) depicted with the tail between the hind legs.
We do not use drones because we are afraid of danger or unpleasant things. We use them because they are pragmatically better, and they are more risk adverse than doing it in the traditional way. Just like we use oven mitts when reaching into a stove. We would not call someone cowardly for when using the best available tool reduces risk.
We are not afraid of pain. The usage does reduce risk, as above, but again that is not the primary reason we do it.
Finally, we do not do it to retreat, the classic depiction of a tail covering ones nethers. We do it to advance.
So no, drones are not "cowardly" in and of themselves. They are a tool. Our use of the tool is generally not cowardly either, but pragmatic and risk adverse. Even our philosophy around drones tends to be neutral in this regards. We fly in the open. We have public policies. We advertise. It's hard to call it "cowardly."
(16)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
That is why we let the Navy handle our UAVs, because the Army aint afraid to go kicking in a few doors
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
CAPT Hiram Patterson - That I cant disagree with, Sir. Glad we are on the same side.
(0)
(0)
11
11
0
I think there is a comparison here. During the Revolutionary War the US had begun using Kentucky Long Rifle compared to the Brown Bess the British were using.
Up till this time, men lined up across from one another at short distances and shot volleys at one another. The officers hung out in the back, out of range, for command and control. Then comes the Kentucky Long Rifle. Somebody figures out we can shoot the officers in the back of the formations and the troops don't know what to do. Then we figured out if we just hang out in cover we can shoot the guys in the front line before their Brown Bess is even in range. We were called cowards by the British. We did not stand and fight in the traditional method.
Because of technology (The rifled barrels of the Kentucky Long Rifle as opposed to the smooth bore Brown Bess) we were able to deploy a much more lethal force without the losses that the enemy was experiencing.
Patton said it best, "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."
Up till this time, men lined up across from one another at short distances and shot volleys at one another. The officers hung out in the back, out of range, for command and control. Then comes the Kentucky Long Rifle. Somebody figures out we can shoot the officers in the back of the formations and the troops don't know what to do. Then we figured out if we just hang out in cover we can shoot the guys in the front line before their Brown Bess is even in range. We were called cowards by the British. We did not stand and fight in the traditional method.
Because of technology (The rifled barrels of the Kentucky Long Rifle as opposed to the smooth bore Brown Bess) we were able to deploy a much more lethal force without the losses that the enemy was experiencing.
Patton said it best, "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."
(11)
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
Perhaps when terrorists become so loathsome that the innocent no longer abide their presence will the drones be parked. To paraphrase Golda Meir: when [terrorists] love their children more than they hate the [infidel] is when this war will end...
(2)
(0)
11
11
0
Not as cowardly as seeking out and grabbing unarmed civilians and shooting them, because you don't have the balls to fight the good fight.
Not as cowardly as seizing little girls as sex slaves, because you just don't have the mojo to strike up a conversation and win one with your charming personality.
Not as cowardly as killing schoolteachers because they have the temerity to teach children how to read and know something other than your filth.
If Islamic State wants to draw up on the field of battle and do this the old fashioned way, I'm sure we would oblige.
Not as cowardly as seizing little girls as sex slaves, because you just don't have the mojo to strike up a conversation and win one with your charming personality.
Not as cowardly as killing schoolteachers because they have the temerity to teach children how to read and know something other than your filth.
If Islamic State wants to draw up on the field of battle and do this the old fashioned way, I'm sure we would oblige.
(11)
(0)
CMSgt James Nolan
1SG (Join to see) I concur.
How tough do you have to be to commit suicide and kill innocents? Not very, just gullible.
How tough must you be to rape women and children? Not very, just an asshole.
Storming buildings full of unarmed people? Not tough, again, just assholes.
Want to prove how tough you are? How well organized, how hard? Stand up and fight, don't hide behind women and children and in hospitals.....
As they say "Bring it".
How tough do you have to be to commit suicide and kill innocents? Not very, just gullible.
How tough must you be to rape women and children? Not very, just an asshole.
Storming buildings full of unarmed people? Not tough, again, just assholes.
Want to prove how tough you are? How well organized, how hard? Stand up and fight, don't hide behind women and children and in hospitals.....
As they say "Bring it".
(2)
(0)
There is no cowardly way to kill an enemy in battle. There are effective ways to kill the enemy, and there are ineffective ways.
If you can kill the enemy by playing dead and stabbing him in the back after he passes you, that is not cowardly. That is effective.
If you can kill the enemy by playing video games in the American desert and thereby dropping bombs on the enemy thousands of miles away, that is not cowardly. That is not heroic, either, but it is effective.
Certainly there are cowardly actions on the battlefield, such as hiding behind innocent civilians
If you can kill the enemy by playing dead and stabbing him in the back after he passes you, that is not cowardly. That is effective.
If you can kill the enemy by playing video games in the American desert and thereby dropping bombs on the enemy thousands of miles away, that is not cowardly. That is not heroic, either, but it is effective.
Certainly there are cowardly actions on the battlefield, such as hiding behind innocent civilians
(10)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
"There is no cowardly way to kill an enemy in battle." That made me cringe a little, because I swear I've heard some of our enemies use the same logic in response to host nation government information operations to justify using suicide bombers near military and police bases. Fortunately, the US does not do this nor do any of our allies as far as I know.
(1)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
"There are effective ways to kill the enemy, and there are ineffective ways."
This. It's natural to see other peoples' actions, then superimpose onto it our own ideals and sense of ethics. It doesn't really accomplish anything, though. From a tactical standpoint, the "whatever works" approach is appealing, and it gets results. On the other hand, in reality we DO have to set boundaries for the sake of public relations (on the home front) as well as international relations.
In the end, the method itself doesn't matter nearly as much as the results. If we can manage to achieve our strategic objectives without a ton of avoidable civilian deaths, history will look at RPAs the same way that it looks at the longbow or the Kentucky Long Rifle. If we screw it up or get sloppy, it can end up as this generation's Agent Orange or napalm. For now, I think our use of RPAs is reasonably well balanced, and history will view it as a justifiable, effective use of force.
This. It's natural to see other peoples' actions, then superimpose onto it our own ideals and sense of ethics. It doesn't really accomplish anything, though. From a tactical standpoint, the "whatever works" approach is appealing, and it gets results. On the other hand, in reality we DO have to set boundaries for the sake of public relations (on the home front) as well as international relations.
In the end, the method itself doesn't matter nearly as much as the results. If we can manage to achieve our strategic objectives without a ton of avoidable civilian deaths, history will look at RPAs the same way that it looks at the longbow or the Kentucky Long Rifle. If we screw it up or get sloppy, it can end up as this generation's Agent Orange or napalm. For now, I think our use of RPAs is reasonably well balanced, and history will view it as a justifiable, effective use of force.
(1)
(0)
Angana Thakur
do you realize there are laws of war known as international humanitarian law? even if a way is effective it might be unlawful like by playing dead and then stabbing him from the back. Drones are in certain cases unlawful because by the principles of distinction and proportionality, they can harm more civilians than militants. This happens but not in all cases.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Hugh Blanchard
There are no "rules" that require us to engage in a "fair contest" in war. Why would we ever agree to that? We would be snowed under by sheer numbers of opponents if we did not use superior weapons and tactics. There's no law of war that forbids us from tricking and killing an enemy. If you don't want to die, then don't fight the United States armed forces. We have agreed by treaty not to use chemical and biological weapons, and our policies restrain the use of nuclear weapons to self-defense in response to an enemy's use of WMD. We never intend to kill innocent non-combatants, but the collateral damage of unintended civilian deaths does NOT make the use of unmanned systems illegal. Sorry, but that is nonsense..and by the way, although we abide by it, the U.S. is NOT a signatory to the Geneva Convention.
(1)
(0)
7
7
0
"If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck." - John Steinbeck
(7)
(0)
MAJ Hugh Blanchard
Amen...that's what our work in capabilities development is all about - no fair fights. Anyone who takes on the American armed services should be crushed, quickly and efficiently. Fair fights are stupid...
(1)
(0)
7
7
0
4
4
0
The objective is to accomplish a mission with minimal loss of friendly resources - lives, in particular. Drones are a mechanical extension of the sniper on the ground. So, an effective way of getting the job done. Not cowardly.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
Drones are just the Military's way of being like AT&T. It is an easy and effective way to reach out and touch someone.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
No, they are not cowardly. Throughout history the only reason a country committed troops to a conflict was to gain real estate. We have no interest in these countries. So drones make perfect sense.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google