Drone Improvements

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry I thought you were talking about the munition not the delivery system. I was saying that targeting armored vehicle is different than targeting individuals. There is already a solution for Armored vehicles.

Individuals are also easily dealt with. In the future we might even be able to zap them with lasers.

I guess the point of this thread is to reduce risk to other people.

Who?

Hypothetical innocents and targeting a hypothetical enemy force.

For me was looking it from an engineering problem. But it Dox47's premise was practical about practical solution to an ethic question.

The reason I'm asking is due to a general tendency to overlook the risk to our troops. Their hands are already tied to an extent that is already causing unnecessary risk. I'm not against reducing collateral damage, but it shouldn't come at the expense of our men and women in uniform. So, therein lies the challenge: Kill more precisely without increasing the risk on our side of the equation, and within the limits of available resources. Would it be wrong to fry enemy combatants with lasers?

No, that's not how it works, or at least, should work. You don't get to kill two innocents just because it will save the life of one of your soldiers. *Their* lives take priority; your soldier is there to protect *innocent people*.

Unless, of course, you don't take a universal moral position, and see foreign lives as not being as important. But even if you hold to such a position, you have to bear in mind the costs of acting on such - you're not going to be in a very good position if you take having "no friends, only interests" to rule out forming alliances, and there are associated reputational costs with treating foreign lives as having little worth.

Oh, I'm starting to sound like Harry James Potter Evans-Verres...

We've had this discussion countless times and not much has changed. I don't see any evidence of Russian aggression, it was the Kiev government that invaded the east after they demanded autonomy after the illegal overthrow of their democratically elected president Yanukovych, how is that legitimate but the wishes of those in eastern Ukraine not? It makes no sense to me, they took over buildings just as they did in Kiev and this new government reacted by sending in the military and declaring war, and now we can see that they've bit off more than they can chew.

Its not a conspiracy, look at the origins of EuroMaidan and maybe you'd understand that it was a play by the West specifically the EU to steal Ukraine into their sphere of influence. The EU gave Yanukovych an ultimatum that either he accept association with the EU meaning essentially that they'd have to cut ties Russia and not be able to join their Eurasian Union by some arbitrary deadline or that they'd cut them out forever, Russia responded to this by offering Yanukovych just a straight up better deal including which including $15b in aid and to cut gas prices by a third. This is when EuroMaidan really started and all that money the west spent in Ukraine "developing democracy" since their independence was put into use by facilitating and supporting these violent protests against Yanukovych's decision to stick with their traditional ally Russia. We all heard about the sniper attacks in Kiev but nobody really knows who is responsible and most signs point to it actually being a false flag to precipitate a revolution, it made no sense for Yanukovych to fire on protesters when he had literally just worked out a deal with them. So who had something to gain by them?

The US and EU have been encroaching on Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union, the deal they worked out with Mikael Gorbachev was that NATO would not expand "an inch to the east" is the Soviet's removed their troops from East Germany which only took a few years for to be completely disregarded and now NATO has been expanded to almost every former Warsaw Pact country and former Soviet republics, so how can Russia be the one being aggressive here? What would the US do if Russia or China tried to exert influence in Mexico in order to create an anti-American government? Russia's motivations here seem pretty upfront and easy to understand so what is the US and EU's problem? Do you really think they care about "democracy and human rights"? Of course not and the proof is in the pudding by who we ally ourselves with in the Middle East. The US is largely responsible for the rise of ISIS as you should know, we talk about how evil Iran and Syria are but we're friends with Saudi Arabia who is literally the source of almost all global terrorism? Lets be real here, this is realpolitik. Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote about this very situation in Ukraine more than 15 years ago in his book 'The Grand Chessgame' which was his plan to ensure global US hegemony. There is just this knee jerk reaction to condemn Russia in this country, we did in Georgia and if you know about the conflict in Georgia then you would know that it was entirely because of the aggressive actions of pro-US president Mikheil Saakashvili who shelled Russian peacekeepers then invaded South Ossetia before Russia responded in kind.

You have to understand there are undercurrents of Naziism in Ukrainian nationalism, that is who they were allied in during WWII when these same nationalists massacred something like a 100,000 Poles and Jews. Stepan Bandera is still a very revered figure by these nationalists which come from the western part of the country. They are very much thugs and definitely played a huge role as the foot soldiers in EuroMaidan but mind you this was not a nationalist revolution but rather one backed by the EU/US and that the oligarchs such as Igor Kolomoisky and their "Chocolate King" Petro Poroshenko. The Nazis here are just the useful idiots they utilize to achieve their goals, they have formed militias with the support of the government and have been acting with impunity in the east of the country. These ideologues are often times more effective than the UAF but these do not show them the same mercy as they do the conscripted soldiers, its is a convenient way for to pawn off responsibility for their deaths and any atrocities they might commit while they were alive.

There is an easy solution to all of this and that is to allow self-determination for all peoples, that's not something most countries are prepared to support so they do so only when it fits their agenda. They don't want to give any oppressed people's in their own countries any ideas obviously. The precedent was set in Kosovo, do you find that legitimate? How can you accept their independence as legitimate yet deny it to others? Yes there is hypocrisy on all sides of this issue but the fact remains that eastern Ukraine(and Crimea) are not represented by the central government in Kiev which is openly hostile to any and all Russian influence. So I say let eastern Ukraine decide its own fate at the ballot box, let Albanians in Kosovo have their independence, let Catalonia or Scotland or Quebec or Texas or where ever make that decision for themselves. Our governments do not own us, the legitimacy of governance comes from the consent of the governed.



here is an armored vehicle captured by the NAF at Debaltsevo, I wonder what part of Russia this was made? The US is probably smart not to openly arm the Ukrainians, their Russian invasion narrative would evaporate pretty fast when the rebels started using captured NATO weapons. The US is usually pretty cognitive of this and make extensive use of supplying Russian made weapons when they wish to covertly meddle in some foreign war just as they have in Syria.

Are you referring to some kind of voodoo ritual?


You are confusing warfare with peacekeeping.

This is BS. EU is not "stealing" influence anymore than Russia is stealing influence. You show ignorance of how Yanukovych played the two off each other. He dangled EU in front of the Ukrainian people, then when they were most interested the Russians made a counter offer. That is what happened, there rest is unsubstantiated.



He would know this is BS, becuase this would never pass. Countries have never joined, if is a misses some arbitrary deadline doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Regardless. You are saying is it is a conspiracy that people protested against him, becuase he went back on what he said.

Black OPs sheeple

NATO != EU last time I checked Turkey and US were not in EU.

You are saying it is a bad thing that EU wants to influence Eastern Europe? You think that nation state cannot be sold an idea?

You realize the USSR didn't exactly ask every country it occupied?

Did you know at one point they were trying to get Russia to join NATO? You know to try and make peace and cooperation. A novel idea perhaps.


Mikael Gorbachev himself disputed this "The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years".

It is absolutely a ridiculous idea that Russia get to dictate what other countries choose to do, simply becuase i colonized them, or had them under their sphere of influence.

What countries get to make a buffer zone of other countries? Where does it stop?

Gorbachev has been critical of both Putin and western triumphalism.



NATO has not once threatened the Russian Federation with military action. Why don't you ask countries like Estonia, or Poland why they wanted to be apart of NATO? They are sovereign countries.

NATO, despite talk hasn't actually been involved in this so far.



There are already plenty of of Anti-American governments in south and central America. They have been rotating for years between far left an far right government with some exceptions. Nothing new there.



Again you are conflating coalitions with the EU. Do I think that EU cares about human rights? Short answer, yes I do. Or a least enough to want to make it a long time goal and of member states, and certainty no where near a cynical about is as Putin's Russia. Putin isn't doing this out of nationalism, he is doing it to save his 70 billion personal interest. He is the wealthiest leader by far.

Are individual states, guilty of being hypocritical with their relationships? Yes absolutely. I'm also very critical to the whole approach to the middle east and central Asia.

Let get this straight I'm not big supporter of the EU. But yes, I think that in general through their parliament, especially they want to improve the human right situation in European countries, and in fact they have been successful in doing that.



I agree with you. One wrong doesn't justify another wrong. The US is responsible for ISIS emerging. Not wholly responsible, but a big part. ISIS did obviously capitalize on the situation in Syria, and also general sectarianism playing into their hands. There was no way we were going to go in, after the disaster in Libya.

Russia merely liked Syria, becuase of a strategic naval position. Russia expanded its sphere of influence where is can just like NATO.

I'm a strong supporter of normalizing relations with Iran. That is a real historical conspiracy that need to be addressed, becuase it not well known, even if it is well documented. If you write a discussion about that, I'm happy to talk about some ideas. We are ultimately responsible for the regime in Iran, even more so that ISIS.

Iran is a not bastion of human rights, but pragmatically speaking, it is not working having SA and Iran two opposing power in the region, but tipping the balance in the favour of one. SA is a despicable, regime, and I have no time for the gulf states. However we will have to put up with them for a some time, however I suggest trading as much with Iran to readdress the balance.



You must have a different definition of knee jerk. Tanks rolled into Crimea. Russia has fueled a conflict, rather than allow the Ukrainian to solve their own issues.

The world, not just the EU, condemned Russia's actions.

No one really know who fired first in that situation in Georgia. One thing for certain is Georgia is about as different culturally from Russia as you could get. It is not similar to Ukraine. Sure Stalin was Georgian, but Georgian is predominantly, not Russian and has always been different.

If you know about the soviet union, you would know that the USSR, encouraged Russian to settle to various places in the soviet empire where they were few, precisely to be able to lay claim to it if they had to. Sure it is not an original tactic but an effective one. Ukraine doesn't really fit into that, becuase it has had an association for longer. However that doesn't mean it can't be a separate country going in a separate direction. Just like the Germanic nations are not all joined together.

There is a difference from Rus heritage and supporting Putin's Russia.

The definition of "peace keeper" in that scenario is extremely vague. South Ossetia may or not eventually be recognized as self governing. However, Georgia isn't being stolen from Russia. It is very different from Russia, and always has been.

It is not as if Russia doesn't have military alliances there is a reason why countries like Georgia are turn their back on Russia. Russia need to get used to it, or make them want to normalize relations.



Back in the real world... We are not in WWII, your claim is no more valid than saying it for Russians. Ironically Russia has a huge problem with Neo Nazi, skinhead groups. Also Russian Empire, and USSR was at times anti-Semitic, and certainly not kind to Poles.

If I had a poundfor every time terms like "fascistoid" was used in Russian politics since the Putin era. I would be a rich man. It is part of the rhetoric. They use it ironically, and as a scapegoat.

Also Stalin did things like force the mass exile of the Tartars. What about the great purge, and the atrocities of the Soviet Union, under Statin? Nobody is saying the rebels are about that.

Besides why would I trust you, when I have a Russian-Ukrainian friend who know what is actually going on right now in both countries, through relatives accounts?



Self-determination is something worked out in nations states, or governed territories. Otherwise I could declare a state of one. Factionalism isn't something to be proud of. You are making out that the Russian speaking east somehow all go along with this. They don't all support it. Sorry you are wrong.

My friend begs to differ on your view. In his region the only Ukrainian speakers, were gypsies. This attack on Russian culture is a fabrication. Just becuase there are some skinhead an nutjob doesn't mean it will happen. Just go to Russia and you will find plenty of the same.

I trust my friend more than you. Like I said he was a in the soviet army, he is both Ukrainian and Russian, he has liven in various Warsaw Pact countries too.



The Ukrainian army has Humvees from 2001 as do the Polish. So does countless countries, including some countries in a alliance with Russia.

This is somewhat different than providing anti-aircraft missiles and tanks to civilians

--

Look Jacoby I get it, you are a reactionary. You want to punish the US, and it allies for their harebrained campaigns in Iraq and Libya. I can understand the emotion.

The Griffin is supposed to help with the Predator's overkill problem. It can also carry six of them (vs. only two Hellfires).

I think you're right that the weight of a .50 BMG is manageable. Just the warhead on a Hellfire is 50 lbs., and semi-auto .50s are only about 30 lbs.

That is not how a military operates. They are not impartial protectors of innocents, they emphasize loyalty to their own country and their collegues. Soldiers are always partisan, and they will generally prefer to get their mates back. Look at Israel, if some soldiers are kidnapped they will go to great lengths to get them back. They have to, otherwise people wouldn't want to join the military.

We did sign a convention on this. How soldiers should act toward civilians and other soldiers.

The hypothetical moral question still stands. Do you prevent the death of one innocent, or you work to destroy a capacity which is killings lot of innocents, even if some innocents may die in the process? The problem with that question is there are few certainties as far as outcomes.

Actually I would argue, in many cases this standard has been used against us. That is not to say we shouldn't still try to stick to it.

Like I said,

Which is evidently the case, hence the outrage when it emerged that some of the people the NSA are spying on are "American citizens". As if they can do what they like to foreigners, just so long as they leave Americans alone. But then, I don't get the statist mindset. If I had leglimency, I'd be very tempted to use it on people and rip the understanding of them from them.

What is so wrong with having a state of one, anyway? One guy, on their homestead, is really not going to be a threat. What is so wrong with letting them do what they want? They're not exactly hurting anyone. If they do, then you can justifiably wage war against them. Heh. Sounds like libertarianism.

If you let people have self-determination, you can't (well, you can, I suppose) draw an arbritary line and say "this far, no further; a group of 1 million is allowed self determination, but a group of 500 thousand is not". Whatever position you take, it ought to be consistent.

I am being consistent. I'm saying self determination only applies to the people in an established, governed region.

A break away territory is up in the air, becuase just becuase people take up arms doesn't men they should be recognized as representative of what they claim.

Where did I say I don't find foreign lives aren't important? Straw-man. This tragic situation in Ukraine is killing lots of people. I am particularly heartened from account from someone who knows the regions and knows how divisive this has been.

This argument oh why don't you leave the poor rebel alone, they are not harming anyone. Is willfully naive, and inaccurate.

There were counter protests too. They were mobbed, most of them have been forced to leave with nothing.

The protests in the east followed protests in Kiev.

The agreement for new elections was sidestepped, it was a coup, and the coup sent the army to the east, to shell, bomb, and occupy.

There were protesters, there was not a rebel force. That formed after Kiev lost any right to rule by bombing civilian cities. They took arms from local military stores, and captured a lot more from the Kiev troops.

The protesters were demanding to elect their local government, which Governors, Mayors, Chief of Police, and more were appointed by Kiev.

They were also the strongest block of the Party of Regions, which had elected the President the coup overthrew.

Consent of the governed and majority rule are not radical.

Dropping cluster bombs and white phosphorus on political protesters is radical, also a war crime.

Calls for genocide, killing every Russian speaker, abolishing the Russian language, were heard in the streets of Kiev, and in the Parliament. This came before protests in the east, and lead to it.

It was followed by a full scale military assault, in Kiev, only riot police had been used.

Even with Kiev's losses, they still occupy half of the land area of the eastern Oblasts. Millions of people have been driven from their homes.

The Jewish Coup, their American and British supporters, all belong at the end of a rope for crimes against humanity. Mass murder for political and economic reasons, the extermination of an ethnic minority, using banned weapons of war against civilians, committing acts of terror, Collective Punishment, and a lot more crimes that are hanging offenses.

Now that Kiev has been pushed back, fought to a cease fire, they openly talk of invading Crimea and killing every man woman and child. Other Russian speaking areas are occupied by the army.

Kiev wants arms and troops from NATO and America, to kill every Russian speaker. NATO has refused, the British and Americans are thinking about it.

Europe is waking up to being played for the fall guy in WWIII.