These Drones Transform into Bombs

Is that all the American think of, killing people, and then killing more people?

they don't have a monopoly on creativity or warthink. but I'll grant you that there is a massive parasitic military-industrial situation there. unfortunately, war is a great money maker, and power transfer system. the sad part is that it is clothed in the guise of 'defense'.... or liebensraum, or any other concept which will disguise the true nature of it all. deception is an integral part of the system.. it is power seeking through fear and violence.

for those who have not found the other ways of self improvement....

anything that creates can also destroy.. and we are all creators.

chris

You have presented the case with great clarity, wisdom, and understanding. well done. ga

It is what it is, and it no one can change another person's mind... which is why it is the way it is.

I admit to an inner conflict. I adhere to a single heavenly rule. "Do Not Remove Choice From Others" which is basically an expression of the 'golden rule'.

My problem is... what do I do to defend my self and my family when it comes to defense? If Others choice is to harm us, then that clearly removes choice from us... but heaven isn't saying 'survive at all costs'. (at least not to me)

but I still want to survive. Instinctively and culturally, I would make a great warrior if the need arose. I've been practicing war since I was a child... I guess we are all children of war. how will our answers be different? hmmm.

Thank you for your kind thoughts.

Consider the practice of war you have taken since you were a child and compare that to Palestinian children, as one example.

There is a stark contrast between the two. Even Shaolin monks train to extraordinary extents in the art of war, but seek peace above all else.

Such is yin and yang.

"Not once in American history has the US military started a war. Not once"

This absolute statement presents a conundrum for me.

Overall, I share your position/philosophy, but the statement is not correct. 'Political will' has been known to follow and/or be shaped by, US military 'shots fired' several times in history.

But rather than get into 'listing examples', which has nothing to do with the topic, or anything much, I'm just letting you know my un-vote is strictly for the "absolute", not the main thrust, and hopefully we/everyone, can leave it at that.

Great Answer, absolutely the Truth!

Not once in American history has the US military started a war..
Eh? What was that ludicrous and illegal fishing trip in Iraq?
It is a shame on the UK that Mr Blair was stupid enough to go along with it.
Del
(BTW this thread should prob get pulled before it degenerates into politics)

Probably so!! Before ....?

Del, you missed your calling. Even though you Brits are known for understatement, this borders on the stiff-upper-lipped ludicrous.

Micahd

Think about it Del. The military does not start wars, Congress and the President start wars.

The US military does not act unilaterally. That would be treason or a coup.

The responsibility for starting a war can only fall on the shoulders of the President or Congress and the US military follows the orders of the commander in chief.

The conflict in Iraq was started specifically by the order of the President of the United States, George Bush, not some general.

If you insist on being pedantic:-

The Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces is the President of the United States, according to Article II, Section 2, Clause I of the Constitution.^[12]

Quote from Wiki (so it must be true)
Next!
Del

I noticed when responding to AH, he qualified that by;

"The US military is the arm of the politicians, they make that call. The president of the US can initiate and Congress is responsible for the declaration."

Or, he is saying politicians start them then they direct the military.

So: It's not the Brass or Grunts that start them - lay of the 'military' - blame the 'Polly's'.

Which would be fine, if that is how it actually works. But it's not.

Specific case possibly? I would like to understand when the military started something all on their own.

in public domain - Gulf of Tonkin

A created incident yes - nothing to do with the president? That I doubt.

Ok,Texas then

Sounds like self defense. It was a skirmish, not a war.

Give me an example where the US military acted unilaterally to initiate a war?

Aside from Custer?

You accused Chris of being naive about how things work.

But this is an easy question if one answers this question first;

Who is is the principal military adviser to the President of the United States, the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council and the Secretary of Defense

Bottom line; All of them.

You wrote, "Aside from Custer?"

Are you referring to the Indian Wars?

My knowledge of American history is so-so, but that "war" started in the early 17th century and continued (on and off again) to the 20th century.

If memory serves, General George Custer was born in the early 19th century, which would have made it impossible for this general to have started that conflict.

The early US Presidents signed numerous acts such as Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act to authorize the use of force to relocate Indians. I don't remember the specifics nor all of the Acts that were passed, but George Custer was probably a baby when Jackson held office.

You wrote, "Who is is the principal military adviser to the President of the United States, the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council and the Secretary of Defense"

What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying the advisors are responsible? Obviously, the President is responsible.

The US Constitution gives the President authority to start a military conflict for the defense of the nation and Congress the power to declare war. Congress also holds the purse strings for any and all military action.

In 1973, I believe, the War Powers Act was signed into law as a mechanism to formalize and limit the power of the President, which was seen to be abused by acts in the Korean and Vietnam conflicts.

It depends on who's version of what happened that caused the Gulf of Tonkin incident whether you could say that hostilities were started by the military. Some would argue the valid point that a politician put US Navy vessels close enough to North Vietnam's coast for torpedo boats to interdict. Others could also easily claim that the US Navy overreacted to North Vietnam boats responding to warships off of their coast.

Didn't this take place in international waters?

Not according to the North Vietnamese government. At the time the nominal territorial waters boundary was I believe five nautical miles beyond low tide water marks. North Vietnam claimed twelve nautical miles (ironically this is now the standard water boundary). It is also important to this discussion to note that the USS Maddox fired first. They were intended to be warning shots but the US shot first.

Okay. I read through some of those links (thanks). However, what war did this start?

I think it was just another military snafu based on bad intelligence. All military forces operate under rules of engagement and typically will respond with force if threatened.

It seems that this event was a military mishap, but not an attempt to spontaneously initiate a war.

Seriously Are you really so naive and vacuous about American history that you think that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, written by the Eighty Eighth Congress of the United States has nothing to do with a war fought by the US? Don't tell me that you're going to now try to back into the claim that this was an undeclared war so that it doesn't count. The US has only had five formally declared wars in our existence. Our proclivity for war that circumvents Congress generated the ambivalent, imprecise and generally useless War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Huh?

Maybe I am naive. However, answer some questions for me?

Was the Gulf of Tonkin a war in by itself?

What are you claiming, anyway? Are you claiming that the military started a war unilaterally and by design in the Gulf of Tonkin (thus bypassing the President of the United States and Congress)?

Please steer this discussion back to the technology of the drones. Any political thoughts can be taken offline (to a private message, for example).

ya... its starting to drone on...

Is that a forum rule or your personal wish?

Killing is not the only thing we think of. Lately though it is the only part of our budget that won't get cut. It is the thing that we think of that gets the easiest global publicity. Sadly our creative death machines are one of the few things that many here gladly paste "Made in the USA" labels on. Sadly I could only identify a handful of years when the US did not use troops in anger. I'm not sure if this is because of our open honesty of our actions, that our attitudes (of vacillating arrogance and timidity) naturally promotes war with others or if this is the only way a country with so many natural resources can get to keep them.

I had breakfast this morning at a '50's diner... surrounded by Elvis, Marilyn, checkerboards, chevy's, soda fountains, and coin operated music box thingy's on the wall in each booth. I personally love this.. the ambiance, the music, the food... it doesn't get much better.

Americans have created culture, mixed with profit and marketing, and it worked... millions of people around the world loved it all... (not everyone) and still do.

surely there is a peaceful way to prosper and grow, while a minimum yet adequate maintaining civil defense system.

what occurs now is a paradigm that creates enemies... further stimulating the production of the instruments of war. To me, this is rather undeniable.

I appreciate all the positive creative profit oriented output from America.. but as we all do sometimes.. we have to love our relatives, while identifying certain behaviours as inappropriate to our larger goals.

as in family squabbles, aggressive behaviours never solve the problems, or lead to peace.. never. It takes forgiveness, love, humility, and a willingness to see the other side's point of view.. before change can occur. a willingness to mature, eat crow, etc.

American's are certainly not all to blame.... but a change in policies would make a huge difference, because they are so influential, with such potential to be a positive global example.

I respect your honesty redfred.

Chris

I think that al Qaeda has succeeded in bleeding us financially to the point of bankruptcy. This was always their plan. They never planned on defeating us militarily. We are like a great elk surrounded by coyotes. China and Russia stand back and pull the strings.

We destroyed the Soviet Union by outspending them, but we have reached our limit. We are no longer economically capable of continuing this global overreach. Germany outreached itself marching into the Russian winter, just as Napoleon did.

We need to get out of our foreign entanglements. Europe, Japan, South Korea and all our allies need to do their part. We have been protecting them, without reimbursement, for far too long.

No one can defeat us militarily in North America. We are capable of destroying any group of nations many times over. We need to moderate our military spending without losing the advantages we have in trained and experienced personnel, and in weapons systems that we already possess.

We have a border with Mexico that needs to be closed. Lets put some of our troops there, after we bring them home. Maybe we should retrain them as border patrol officers.

Drones are a big part of the future of the air force and we should proceed with them. They are very cost effective, and save American lives.

Thank You Chris.

Kind words and empathy will always be in my book of ways to deal with people from all walks of life. But sometimes harsh actions must be taken. I'm reminded of the scene in the great American novel "To Kill A Mockingbird" where the sheriff has located a rabid dog in the street and he sees the kindest man in town, Atticus Finch, in the crowd being held back from the dog. He knows that Atticus is a better shot with a rifle than he is so he asks Atticus to put the dog down. He does with one shot.

Humanity needs kind people in charge who also recognize when kindness won't work. When it won't work, swift sharp and decisive action can actually be the kindest thing to happen.

I don't agree that your comment is off topic so I negated the one vote. You do overlook one critical point of this article though. The US Army is designing these new war machines.The US Army is only a part of America. Killing people is the job of any Army. The fundamental job of the US Army is to be lethal when called upon. To blame the US Army for our ability to kill people is like arresting a surgeon for assault because they cut a person on an operating table. In the nominal scenario for this particular weapons platform, this reconnaissance drone can become armed to take out a critical enemy target. This is hardly random and indiscriminate destruction designed to kill as many civilians as possible.

American military do not have as a policy of using suicide bomb vests on low ranking people or kidnapped people to be used in public markets. American military strides to minimize civilian casualty. This weapon platform is an example of this. American military do not take civilian aircraft full of civilian passengers and deliberately crash them into civilian buildings hoping for the biggest impact possible.

Ten years ago I personally knew two good people that were manning the radio/television transmitters on top of the World Trade Center. They never had a chance.

Like Red Fred pointed out - the military has a task and they are to prepare for that task in the best manner they can.

The 'kind heart' approach I have a bit of trouble with as it is laughable to the 'bad guys' around the world. Lovey dovey is not applicable around the world.

Interesting; so we finally have the 'guided mortar'. Putting aside all the emotive journalistic language and "trigger terms", I wonder what the operator skill levels and battlefield bandwidth ramifications are.

I have an RC simulator program, which has a first-person capability for any of these model aircraft. I can, and anyone can, guide the RC craft to the target, with only a few hours practice. I don't imagine the radio requirements are much different. Check out this model mod, involving a user built helmet mounted cam...

given the affordability of the technology, (RC) I can see both sides using it, in any given conflict.

Chris

Indeed, "both sides". Which raises the whole 'friend or foe' ID and signal jamming issues/technology, out of 'garage door openers' and IED's. I think I remember a bit on CR4 about that/those problems/systems. As for a "few hours of training" - 'under direct fire' may influence that.

Hi guys,

I'm just reading through some stuff that I missed while on vacation.

As far as the drones are concerned, they are one of the few things that I can say that I truly feel good about. They are indeed killing machines, but think about it, while they are used to kill the bad guys, they are also designed to absolutely minimize collateral damage to as little as possible. The use of drones to get the bad guys, as opposed to conventional bombs and missiles, has spared countless civilian lives on the ground. While there are many aspects of the military/industrial complex that I'm not happy about, it's has more to do with wasting money than anything else. I'm getting tired of hearing that the US is an evil empire. The worst part is, that I'm hearing it more and more from our own ill informed citizens.

I could get into why Iraq was a good choice as a theatre of engagement with the terrorists, but I'm already getting long. Just remember, Saddam was hung by his own people...............not us.

CR4 ADMIN: Modified Post

Politics/Religion: This post was modified because it was overly religious or political. While each user is entitled to his or her own opinion on these topics, CR4 is not the place for discussion about them. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

You wrote, "The worst part is, that I'm hearing it more and more from our own ill informed citizens."

There are two reasons for this:

1. People really don't have a good working knowledge of history. I don't consider myself really well versed in history, but most of the people I have met even know less, which is scary.

2. People only have a surface understanding of geopolitics. They get what they know from the news and that is it. In general, there isn't much interest on the part of the public to scratch deeper than that.

However, geopolitics has two faces; one for public consumption, and a second which is what happens behind closed doors. What goes on behind closed doors is often unrelated to what makes the news.

We tend to base our geopolitical opinions based on the news and prefer simple explanations to complex situations, therefore we have a very limited grasp as to what is really going on around us and why.

Lastly, when the majority of people hold a simplistic view of geopolitics it is far easier to manipulate people's opinions on a subject.

An example of this is the simplistic logic that: if war is terror, then all parties that make war are terrorists. Therefore, the biggest war machine is the biggest terrorist. Therefore, the US is the biggest terrorist.

That type of rhetoric plays well to the hearts and minds of people and creates a false impression of the realities of international geopolitics.

Freedom isn't free.

It's sad but it is true.

After you get past "Freedom isn't free" things get pretty complicated. Do you defend others or do you only defend yourself? When you identify "evil doers" do you go after them or wait until they come after you? Tough questions, normally no good answers. Never 100% agreement.

Sitting back and having everyone enjoy a cool one only works if you have nothing that someone else would want to take. Even then it might not work.

Go ahead and blame the US for everything. We probably deserve some of it. But I suggest you don't throw away our phone number. You may need it someday.