Mapping US drone attacks:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10648909
It seems a very hands-off and white-collar way to wage war. But maybe we can see the point? Other opinions?
V
It seems a very hands-off and white-collar way to wage war. But maybe we can see the point? Other opinions?
I can't see any point in waging war. Ever.
Yes, but we've been through that core subject more than once before. My answer is often, as a theoretical idea but which could indeed have happened (we did have the Battle of Britain in the air):
If it were the 1940s and there was a channel tunnel open at that time with the entire Nazi Army marching down it to take over and ravage all of Britain, would it be right to stand aside out of pacifism and allow millions of people to be killed and tortured, raped, if say you had one button in your hand which could bring the tunnel down on them?
Maybe there are gender differences? But in the past you did see that point, and the stupidity of total pacifism.
I would bring the tunnel down on a few hundred or more Nazis in that situation every time, in order to save our entire nation from pillage, rape, and murder. To do otherwise is airey-fairy intellectuallism, and ultimately, at least to a male, cowardice of not wanting to take responsibility for essential action.
But that brings us back to the thread topic. It's not exactly a "macho" way to wage war. By drones. But that's the way technology is going - there may be no need for pilots in many cases; therefore, from logic, why should there be pilots when not needed? But it doesn't "feel right". It's all new as a concept to me TBH and am getting my head around it.
I fully disagree that we should never wage war. If it is ultimately clear that we do so to protect ourselves, then it is ludicrous not to do so. It depends on the situation I guess, and it's a grey area in this situation? If it were not grey, all methods would be fine IMHO.
To a pacifist, even the air Battle of Britain was "wrong": I have no resonance with such a pie-in-the-sky theoretical stance. Basically the Battle of Britain in the air was more or less identical to my theoretical concept of an open channel tunnel: if we had lost that war in the air, Nazis would certainly have invaded, there would be no internet probably today, you and I would probably not be alive (I know I wouldn't as I would resist from a young age:)) and Britain as such would not exist. We certainly would not be openly posting on something called HP! There would be no open dialogue or freedom.
It's very nice, isn't it, when pacifism can be talked about intellectually: in the real world it comes down to blood and guts. But this is all off-topic, as the use of drones just "feels" strange to me, and I wonder about the ramifications.
V
To me it's not airy fairy, it's all maya. IMO everything happens perfectly and God takes care of everything. This is what I have been taught and what I believe. What if doesn't exist in my belief system.
their lives come cheap
Mapping US drone attacks:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10648909
It seems a very hands-off and white-collar way to wage war. But maybe we can see the point? Other opinions?
V
Not only a hands-off and white collar type of war but an elitist, racist and reactionary one as well....its ok for western governments as long as illiterate people who cannot articulate their goals, have no voice and belong to a different religion/worldview are killed randomly...if one of "our" people get killed anywhere than its a completely different matter isnt' it?
Kaif
To me it's not airy fairy, it's all maya. IMO everything happens perfectly and God takes care of everything. This is what I have been taught and what I believe. What if doesn't exist in my belief system.
Whoops, sorry, I came out with a whole strong-worded "lecture" there. Wasn't being personal: they are my general thoughts generally held.
However - Arjuna?
V
Not only a hands-off and white collar type of war but an elitist, racist and reactionary one as well
Hi Kaif. I would disagree that it's "racist". Now that the technology is there, it would/will be used in any situation. For example, if the Cold War was still on and we were facing a potential Soviet invasion of Europe, such drones would now be applied in that situation too. They will no doubt be used in any viable military setting from now on - so that's not racist.
However you did clarify why I feel uneasy about this. It is indeed a "white collar" and also "elitist" way to wage war. It just feels to me that this could lead to wrong decisions. For example, someone in a nice office in the Pentagon or the NSA only has to press a button and people die: could this not alienate the person from the reality of what they are doing, almost as if it's just a computer game and not real lives being killed? So they could become "trigger happy" and not so concerned for proof of guilt as, say, a leader on the ground might be.
Maybe I'm wrong, but my gut feeling is that leaders on the ground (or actually flying planes) will be more accountable and cautious over their actions than some white collar person, maybe recently just out of Harvard or whatever, sipping coffee in a swing chair while he picks targets ....
V
What if doesn't exist in my belief system.
It's airey-fairy vs. practicality. And if literally everyone lived only a totally practical life (no mystics, no idealists) the world would be the worst for it. 🙂 But it takes a spread of attitudes. Idealists make utterly practical people think twice; in some instances totally down-to-earth people do the job of keeping us alive and making the world work. (Of course, ideally one can be idealistic and practical, both.)
But I think of the Cold War years. That was a "what if...?" time. Or not even that; IMHO there was a 100% and total certainty that without the West realising that it needed to defend itself, "if" literally all of us had gone the way of Greenham Common fools, the USSR - had we had no defence at all - would without a doubt have invaded us decades ago.
I know I wouldn't be alive today as I'd have resisted, unlike others who apparently believed the Kremlin leaders were nice fat saviours.
I think of the Soviet Gulag, and the untold tens of millions who suffered and died there - far more than even the Jews killed by the Nazis in WW II. We'd have been experiencing the Gulag now too, if some practical people had not said, "What if ...? What do we do if the Soviets attack? We had better prepare in order to avert it."
It's called wisely looking ahead.
V