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
1
1
0
I hesitated to enter this discussion but feel the need to make a comment or two. I feel for the airmen who feel they killed innocent people in the fight to end terrorism - no one wants unnecessary deaths. But war is not clean or without collateral damage. At least the western powers are aware and concerned about that (see the numerous media accounts that point that out). If war was easy and precise we would have no accidental deaths - but it's not.
Then consider the alternatives to "remote weapons" like drones (or bombs, or throwing rocks or anything except hand to hand combat). Would it be acceptable to put others in harms way instead of using remote weapons that are readily available and saves the lives of friendly forces? I would not want to be the one to have to defend the idea of sending in ground troops to do the job a drone could have easily accomplished to the parents of lost soldiers.
Now to the point of the loss of innocent lives due to drone strikes being a cause of recruitment for ISIS. In some small way and to some it probably is - but its not the overriding issue for them. Recall the big event that instigated all of this - 9/11 where the other side killed 3000+ non-combatants (innocent lives) and continue to do so (Paris, Mali, etc.). And if you really want to study the overriding reason for their position, read this article: (https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/12921736/WhyTheyHateUs.pdf?sequence=1). It seems they really don't care about innocent lives.
Is it cowardly to launch a remote weapon? Is the use of a bow and arrow more cowardly than hand to hand combat? That concept suggests any approach beyond hand to hand combat is cowardly. If all combatants would defer to hand to hand combat, that would be great although I suspect they won't select that approach. Until they do, I think the use of drones and other "remote weapons" is fair and justified (knowing we are concerned about collateral damage and loss of life, and trying to limit that as much as reasonable).
War is not clean and never has been. Our task is to limit the loss of innocent life as much as possible and I think we do a pretty good job of it overall. The other guys - not so much.
Just my humble opinion.
Then consider the alternatives to "remote weapons" like drones (or bombs, or throwing rocks or anything except hand to hand combat). Would it be acceptable to put others in harms way instead of using remote weapons that are readily available and saves the lives of friendly forces? I would not want to be the one to have to defend the idea of sending in ground troops to do the job a drone could have easily accomplished to the parents of lost soldiers.
Now to the point of the loss of innocent lives due to drone strikes being a cause of recruitment for ISIS. In some small way and to some it probably is - but its not the overriding issue for them. Recall the big event that instigated all of this - 9/11 where the other side killed 3000+ non-combatants (innocent lives) and continue to do so (Paris, Mali, etc.). And if you really want to study the overriding reason for their position, read this article: (https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/12921736/WhyTheyHateUs.pdf?sequence=1). It seems they really don't care about innocent lives.
Is it cowardly to launch a remote weapon? Is the use of a bow and arrow more cowardly than hand to hand combat? That concept suggests any approach beyond hand to hand combat is cowardly. If all combatants would defer to hand to hand combat, that would be great although I suspect they won't select that approach. Until they do, I think the use of drones and other "remote weapons" is fair and justified (knowing we are concerned about collateral damage and loss of life, and trying to limit that as much as reasonable).
War is not clean and never has been. Our task is to limit the loss of innocent life as much as possible and I think we do a pretty good job of it overall. The other guys - not so much.
Just my humble opinion.
(1)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
Lt Col Timothy Parker, DBA, I'd like to add on to your excellent response, if you don't mind. The estimated casualties for the invasion of Japan in 1945, were 1/2 million US dead, 1 million Japanese dead, and all 5 of the divisions making the initial landing completely destroyed. Over the course of the campaign, up to 2 million US casualties were expected, and up to 10 million Japanese. Instead, we dropped 2 atom bombs totalling 175,000 dead.
War is a BAD THING. That's why more than half the time, when people go to war, they don't like the results - even if they win. People can complain about the bombing of Japan all they want, but somewhere around 8 million people (plus or minus 5 million) survived the war because of it. That's triage. You do the best you can to save as many lives as possible.
ISIS has defended their policy of brutality and terrorism, because it is "kinder" to scare us into surrender and spare more lives. I see no problem in hoping that our drone policy will help convince any members of ISIS with a functional brain (i.e. not a flat out fanatic) that maybe they ought to fade back into the woodwork. Goat herding just might be a better choice that sitting in Hell trying to fit all your body parts back together.
War is a BAD THING. That's why more than half the time, when people go to war, they don't like the results - even if they win. People can complain about the bombing of Japan all they want, but somewhere around 8 million people (plus or minus 5 million) survived the war because of it. That's triage. You do the best you can to save as many lives as possible.
ISIS has defended their policy of brutality and terrorism, because it is "kinder" to scare us into surrender and spare more lives. I see no problem in hoping that our drone policy will help convince any members of ISIS with a functional brain (i.e. not a flat out fanatic) that maybe they ought to fade back into the woodwork. Goat herding just might be a better choice that sitting in Hell trying to fit all your body parts back together.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
no an effective tool in the War on Terror where we do not want to put large troop strengths ashore.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
No. Do you want our armed forces to have to fight "man to man" without benefit of our technology? Bad idea. My job was always to bring our guys home safe, not stage a boxing match according to the Marquess of Queensbury rules. The rules are, we use everything we have to kill them. If they don't want to die, then they shouldn't shoot at our people.
Cowardly is when terrorists attack unarmed people. If they want to fight and don't wear uniforms or make war according to the Law of War, then they deserve every single bad thing that happens to them.
Regards,
Hugh
Cowardly is when terrorists attack unarmed people. If they want to fight and don't wear uniforms or make war according to the Law of War, then they deserve every single bad thing that happens to them.
Regards,
Hugh
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Putting warheads on foreheads with an unmanned aircraft! Work smarter not harder!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
easy answer NO. need more of them, Obama won't give the military what they need so use all the drones we can get our hands on.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Only if our government uses them to strike our people as a cover up to their underhanded dealings.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Define cowardly. Would that be use of field artillery (canon and rocket artillery) (our guys not present to "man to man fight), airstrikes by CAS platforms like the A-10 (same deal on man to man), bombing from B-1s/B-2s/B-52s (same deal), or use of tanks, Tomahawks cruise missiles from ships and subs...or is it be cowardly to use human shields, IEDs, beheading and setting drugged people on fire while you rape their children? Drone strikes ensure our Soldiers live another day to fight since that is their job and our military is always going to be outnumbered.
As for the sensor operators and maintenance Airman who were interviewed for this article/wrote their letter, they never sent a missile anywhere because only the pilot of the UAS does that. None of them are pilots.
As for the sensor operators and maintenance Airman who were interviewed for this article/wrote their letter, they never sent a missile anywhere because only the pilot of the UAS does that. None of them are pilots.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It's an old saying, but still true, our job is to ensure our enemies die for their cause, and we live for ours.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google