| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On September 22 2015 11:53 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: I wasn't saying drones are good I was just saying that I thought that its a bit of a grey area legally. I'm not a lawyer though. Wars are almost always a grey area aside from outright genocide or open field combat in Antarctica. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 22 2015 12:05 Paljas wrote: Wow, thats really great then. Its truly a tragedy that this awesome record will be tarnished due to a growing anti american sentiment. While dead civilians are great, anti american sentiments surely are not The best part about your post is that I pretty much agreed with you, but didn't say it as forcefully as you did. So because you geared up for any argument, you decided to argue with my over the semantics of my statement rather than the substance. So I guess you win this round? | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On September 22 2015 12:11 Plansix wrote: The best part about your post is that I pretty much agreed with you, but didn't say it as forcefully as you did. So because you geared up for any argument, you decided to argue with my over the semantics of my statement rather than the substance. So I guess you win this round? Your main concern about drone strikes were it effects on americas popularity and you justifed them by pointing out that terrorist like to hide. Its hard to argue the substance of your posts when there is none. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On September 22 2015 12:10 WolfintheSheep wrote: It kind of stops being "grey" when you're using drones because you don't want to say you're in a war. Not really. Pretending to be a pussy while you punch people in the face on the playground doesn't change your status from bully. The only thing that matters is the objective facts of whether your actions involve justifiable targets and you executed that in a reasonable way. | ||
|
JumboJohnson
537 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On September 22 2015 12:05 cLutZ wrote: Wars are almost always a grey area aside from outright genocide or open field combat in Antarctica. Uhh did we like not just say global warming and melting our ice sheets is the single greatest threat to humanity? /s | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
On September 22 2015 13:35 ticklishmusic wrote: Uhh did we like not just say global warming and melting our ice sheets is the single greatest threat to humanity? /s Yes, let's be totally dismissive about species extinction rates about as large as during Cretaceous–Paleogene. Though I concur that nuclear war might be a bigger short term threat. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1090 Posts
If it's legal to do with a gun or an airplane, then it should be legal to do with a drone. If it's not legal to do with a gun or an airplane, then it shouldn't be legal with a drone. The only difference is that we don't have to put American soldiers/pilots in harms way to accomplish our goals. That seems like an objectively good thing. Drones are a good thing. However, we may be using them improperly if we are engaging the wrong targets. That wouldn't change if we did the same thing with a soldier and a gun or a pilot and a bomb. Not sure why people would think that laws can't keep up. It's just the new form of the same old thing. On September 22 2015 13:27 TheTenthDoc wrote: I for one can't wait to have drones patrolling our southern border en masse like Christie, Fiorina, and (probably) Trump all want. Maybe then the general population will actually start to think about them. Nothing wrong with drones patrolling the border. It actually makes a lot of sense. Likely, they would be armed with cameras, not weapons, and they would simply spot out illegal border-crossers. Then a task force would drive in and round up the illegals. It should be significantly safer, more effective, and cheaper than blindly putting out human patrols in the hopes of catching border crossers. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11834 Posts
On September 22 2015 18:11 RenSC2 wrote: I have no idea what this obsession with drones is. It's simply a tool just like a gun or an airplane. The operator flies it in and engages the target. Consider it to be just like a pilot flying in and dropping a bomb on a house that contains a terrorist or a soldier sneaking in and then opening fire with his gun on that house. If it's legal to do with a gun or an airplane, then it should be legal to do with a drone. If it's not legal to do with a gun or an airplane, then it shouldn't be legal with a drone. The only difference is that we don't have to put American soldiers/pilots in harms way to accomplish our goals. That seems like an objectively good thing. Drones are a good thing. However, we may be using them improperly if we are engaging the wrong targets. That wouldn't change if we did the same thing with a soldier and a gun or a pilot and a bomb. Not sure why people would think that laws can't keep up. It's just the new form of the same old thing. Nothing wrong with drones patrolling the border. It actually makes a lot of sense. Likely, they would be armed with cameras, not weapons, and they would simply spot out illegal border-crossers. Then a task force would drive in and round up the illegals. It should be significantly safer, more effective, and cheaper than blindly putting out human patrols in the hopes of catching border crossers. I agree with your first part. I wonder what is so magical about drones that makes it suddenly ok to bomb civilian targets in foreign sovereign countries. Would it also be ok if russian drones started bombing random people in the US because some shadowy figure in their government decides that someone possibly around those people might be a threat at some point in the future? (If your answer to that is "Well they won't because we have bigger guns!" then your morality can apparently be compressed to "Might makes Right") The reason people talk about drones is not that drones themselves are the problem, what is being done with them is. There would be similar reactions if it were done with assassination squads via black helicopter or bombs via piloted planes. Regarding your second part, good luck convincing texans that having federal spy drones ("And who knows what else they have on them!") flying all over Texas is a good idea. Actually, i am really interested in this situation. Would getting rid of all the evil illegals who dooga their derps be worth it to have federal spy drones? | ||
zf
231 Posts
On September 22 2015 18:11 RenSC2 wrote: Nothing wrong with drones patrolling the border. It actually makes a lot of sense. Likely, they would be armed with cameras, not weapons, and they would simply spot out illegal border-crossers. Then a task force would drive in and round up the illegals. It should be significantly safer, more effective, and cheaper than blindly putting out human patrols in the hopes of catching border crossers. Except that it wouldn't. Let's take expense. It costs CBP approximately $12,255/hr. to operate a drone. To operate one drone continuously for one year costs $104.7 million. For comparison, that's equal to 0.77% of CBP's total budget for FY 2016 and more than the agency has requested for all activities related to border security and patrol between points of entry. Even if CBP were to adopt drones to a much greater extent, it would still be massively reliant on human assets for interdiction, as you suggest. And CBP does much more than patrol the U.S.-Mexico border. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 22 2015 21:11 zf wrote: Except that it wouldn't. Let's take expense. It costs CBP approximately $12,255/hr. to operate a drone. To operate one drone continuously for one year costs $104.7 million. For comparison, that's equal to 0.77% of CBP's total budget for FY 2016 and more than the agency has requested for all activities related to border security and patrol between points of entry. Even if CBP were to adopt drones to a much greater extent, it would still be massively reliant on human assets for interdiction, as you suggest. And CBP does much more than patrol the U.S.-Mexico border. did they differentiate fixed and variable cost. those numbers look awfully high. if they include initial training cost of the support staff then and to above, drones are liked because, among other things, they lower the political cost of war. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Just think how much easier it would be if we just had a reasonable way to get work visas for seasonal work and removed the uncertainty of getting one next season. If we had a functional immigration system, we wouldn’t need robots. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
zf
231 Posts
On September 22 2015 21:59 oneofthem wrote: did they differentiate fixed and variable cost. those numbers look awfully high. if they include initial training cost of the support staff then It's based on FY 2013 program costs. It includes some operational support and technology expenses, some of which are fixed costs. But those line items, even assuming that they entirely consist of fixed costs, account for ~10% of the total. The major expenses are maintenance and support (i.e., parts, labor, and repairs) and personnel salaries. In short, the numbers look high because they are. Obviously, economies of scale, etc., might lessen the marginal costs of expanding the program. But the point is that it's an open question whether substituting drones for humans is cheaper. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Also, why even bother with drones on the border? The point of drones is to relocate and follow in non-friendly terrain; or to cover lots of area. With modern cameras, it seems like it would be far cheaper to use tethered balloons for border watching; most of the terrain is well suited to that I think, with little cloud cover. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 23 2015 05:18 JinDesu wrote: Tethered balloons seem like a fun thing for people on both sides of the border to try to shoot. Or like weather of any form. And they would need some housing to pull in the balloon prevent damage and charge the camera. Or it could have a power line running up the entire cable. And then they would need a crew to travel out to all the balloons and repair them. Or we could just like hire people and train them. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
GSL
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Leta
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs Flash
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
