TAMInated Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 I am one of the guys going to Creech because of the miserable wench that is called TAMI. Me and the other bros that are getting screwed over have talked over beers about drones and the moral questions that they bring up, the main one being "Is killing without any risk to yourself honorable?" I'm not talking about lobbing a JDAM from the bozosphere. I mean no risk at all. None. Or are drones just a part of the natural progression of warfare? i.e. fists-rocks-spears-arrows-guns-etc. I realize this is a pretty deep topic for this forum, but I'm curious what you guys think, specifically the old skulls who've been shot at and dropped in anger before. Discuss... P.S. Please don't mistake me for some smelly hippie SNAP. There are people out there that deserve to meet their maker and I am happy to arrange that meeting and won't hesitate to hit the pickle button when/if the time comes, whether I'm in my mighty viper or in a glorified Winnebago "flying" something with a smaller motor than my snowmobile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Fighting fair is for suckers. If we can slaughter the enemy without any risk to ourselves than all the better. Killing is killing end of story. The idea that guys doing air to air are somehow abiding by some old idea of chivalry is stupid. Plain and simple, the objective is to kill the enemy while reducing your risk to as close to zero as possible. If you can kill the enemy with no risk to yourself, you win. Go home have a beer and enjoy life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Busdriver pretty much nailed it, the only change I suggest is that our goal is not really to kill the enemy; but to make him capitulate to our desires. If we can do that without killing him, great; if not, then as busdriver said we need to do everything within our power to give ourselves the greatest advantage towards success. If you find yourself in a fair fight, then you've fucked up! Cheers! M2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FourFans Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 If you find yourself in a fair fight, then you've fucked up! I disagree. I think that if you find yourself in a fair fight, your leadership has fucked up... ...and the Lord know's THAT'S not happening these days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bender Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 (edited) I disagree. I think that if you find yourself in a fair fight, your leadership has ######ed up... ...and the Lord know's THAT'S not happening these days... You're in the military, you volunteered, STFU and do your job. - FourFans130 I can see your point, philosophically on one side. That side is well defended by the great americans who have already posted to you. On the other side, I agree, there is much more honor and courage in killing the enemy in your F-16, rahter then the UAV. However, in the end, you should feel no different about it. After all, isn't it the thing we say again and again, your pride comes from being an officer in your military, not a pilot. You're doing what your country is asking of you. The means change with technology, but the pride, honor, courage...rather, duty, honor and country do not. I reccomend you reserve your beer swilling time to chase the ladies and leave the philosopical bibble bable to the people that choose to abstain from such things. ;) Or not, your call...I know I've always enjoyed a good buzz along with the "what if the moon crashed on our heads in 30 seconds" conversation. haha. BENDY Edited February 9, 2008 by Bender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fuse Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Military is the enforcement of policy. Nothing, not even honor, dictates someone must be in harms way to enforce that policy. I'm still a civillian, but I imagine anyone who would prefer putting their life on the line versus having the same mission done from a comfy chair with no risk to their life hasn't been in real combat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Before this thread turns into the usual debate over "at what point are you really in combat;" let's nip that one in the bud. What we do is serve our country, and as long as you are doing that you are serving honorably. Now, those who put themselves in harm's way should garner greater respect; but not by diminishing those who serve nobly without doing so. When it all comes down to it, it is the soldier on the front line who deserves the greatest respect. Bottom line, whether you are "lobbing JDAMs from the bozosphere," strafing the Taliban with a little 30mm party mix, passing gas or turning wrenches on the jet; everyone has a role in the fight and should execute it to the utmost of their capabilities. And if that job is to drive UAVs from Creech, then kickass at it! It is easy to excel at the jobs you like, but a lot tougher to do so with the ones you don't. Cheers! M2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bender Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 And if that job is to drive UAVs from Creech, then kickass at it! It is easy to excel at the jobs you like, but a lot tougher to do so with the ones you don't. Ain't that the truth. Which is one reason why I save my weasel-ly-ness (?) for exeactly that. To have the job I want. Well said on that post, M2. It doesnt really matter to us AF "grunts," the level of respect compared to the 18 YO kids out there putting the boots on the ass is pale. God bless them. BENDY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooter Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 A LOT of wisdom coming out from two distinct sides here (M2/Bendy). I listen to people try to absolve themselves from death in war. "Well I didn't actually drop the bomb" or some such nonsense. It's BS, you're in the military and the end result of the military is what...to eliminate the enemy. Everyone has a role to play but that role invariably gets bad guys killed. You signed on the dotted line, people die in war and you have some role in that. Cooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herk Driver Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 No man ever won a war by dying for his country...he won it by making the other poor, dumb son-of-a-b!tch die for his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flying_Bulldog Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 nice Patton quote Herk. It definately seems fitting here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nightwolf Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 As one of the mottos in my career field goes "we provide the means for the enemy to die for his country" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MaxStatic Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 One of my recent favs has been "My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals!" Lieutenant Colonel McCoy AKA Darkside Six of the 3/4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickhistory Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 One of the reasons for going to UAVs is to take the human out of the loss chain. It's a lot more politically acceptable for the decisionmakers (most who have never served) to accept the real possibility of combat losses if they decide to 'let slip the dogs of war.' They, particularly since the late 1980s have become more and more gun-shy (no pun intended) about US casualties because they know the press/lefties will focus solely on that and not the bigger objective of the operation. The press will then beat them about the head and shoulders until the public votes them out of office. Related, but going left of center - how do flight docs at Creech, et al, get their flight time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stract Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 there was an IP at Rucker back in the day who decided to go do a tour in Global Hawks. The unit was excited to have him b/c he was also a CFI. Apparently to keep up the flying skillz the UAV drivers go fly Cessnas, etc with the Aero Club. My guess is the flight docs tag along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bender Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Just over the F-22/35 hump, I'd expect a push at an unmanned fighter. Once that gets accepted, there will be a quick push at unmanned transport (which will finish long before the fighter project.) I expect them to all still be "flown" by operators from sonewhere, like the current UAVs... It's not exciting, but neither was the possibility of RT in SERE, except with a no shit bad guy. BENDY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAMInated Posted February 9, 2008 Author Share Posted February 9, 2008 One of the reasons for going to UAVs is to take the human out of the loss chain. It's a lot more politically acceptable for the decisionmakers (most who have never served) to accept the real possibility of combat losses if they decide to 'let slip the dogs of war.' They, particularly since the late 1980s have become more and more gun-shy (no pun intended) about US casualties.... Isn't it a good thing to be averse to taking casualties? I sure think so, at least to a certain point. Politicians should be questioned by the press for sending people into harm's way. Sending people to kill at great risk to themselves is not a decision that should be taken lightly. At the same time, I think that if we aren't willing to risk any lives for whatever cause it is we're fighting for, then maybe we need to think a little more carefully about going to war. If we're willing to kill for a cause, but not risk any lives for that same cause, is it really a cause worth fighting for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bender Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 "If we're willing to kill for a cause, but not risk any lives for that same cause, is it really a cause worth fighting for? " I'm not sure you've understood anything that been said to you. "Isn't it a good thing to be averse to taking casualties?" Yes...yes it is. Your troops would appreciate that. "I think that if we aren't willing to risk any lives for whatever cause it is we're fighting for, then maybe we need to think a little more carefully about going to war." No one here is making that choice; When you get to make it remember that. It's not that we are not willing to risk it...we have the technology that we don't have to...it's different. BENDY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoleIt Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 It's just as fair as stealth, laser guided munitions, and heat seeking a2a weapons...those are all as fair as UCAVs or UAVs or whatever they are called these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Don't lose a minute of sleep over it. Killing is killing, whether you're in danger or not. Hadji doesn't feel a twitch of moral guilt about activating an IED via cell phone from many miles away from danger and killing GIs or, worse, civilians. The sniper doesn't think it's an unfair fight picking off an @$$hole in a man-dress 1,500 meters away while he is safely in his hideout. GIs in 'Nam didn't feel any guilt about making Charlie into mincemeat via Claymores hooked up to tripwires around the firebase...while he was inside his hooch flipping through Playboy, "listenin' to punk rock music and bad mouthin' his country". This is part of the natural progression of warfare, and I don't see any moral ambiguity about it in any way. If you're all ready morally comfortable with your role as a warrior and killing of other humans, then it should be no different than strafing, LGBing, JDAMing, or whatever else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Weaver Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Don't lose a minute of sleep over it. Killing is killing, weather you're in danger or not. Hadji doesn't feel a twitch of moral guilt about activating an IED via cell phone from many miles away from danger and killing GIs or, worse, civilians. Hacker's dead on. Make no mistake- Hadji will f@ck your mom on Sunday morning if given the chance. Our job is to obliterate the enemy. I'd gladly club a baby seal from Creech if I had the opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe1234 Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Just over the F-22/35 hump, I'd expect a push at an unmanned fighter. Once that gets accepted, there will be a quick push at unmanned transport (which will finish long before the fighter project.) An unmanned transport? It would have to be something extremely small and light, like the size of a U-Haul trailer. The whole point of the UAV is to overcome the limitations of having human pilots in the cockpit. But for transporting goods, it's kind of a moot point since the aircraft would have to be large and heavy just to move around the cargo, and no remotely-piloted aircraft will ever haul around other human beings. I could see an unmanned transport if it's something used for, say, emergency resupply to a location so heavily surrounded by the enemy that it would be too unsafe to fly in a C-130 or C-27. But, that would be more of a niche for spec ops, if anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bender Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 okay, dude. BENDY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickhistory Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 An unmanned transport? It would have to be something extremely small and light, like the size of a U-Haul trailer. The whole point of the UAV is to overcome the limitations of having human pilots in the cockpit. But for transporting goods, it's kind of a moot point since the aircraft would have to be large and heavy just to move around the cargo, and no remotely-piloted aircraft will ever haul around other human beings......... ..........But, that would be more of a niche for spec ops, if anything. Right, tell that to UPS/FEDEX, et al who are looking at and spending $$ on this. It's a lot cheaper to program a computer than hire/pay a meat servo in the cockpit. It will happen. No strikes, no salary negotiations, no pensions, etc. Same for the military. I'd argue that manned aircraft would do better for the 'pop up' resupply jobs than the long-haul scheduled ones where the variables would be fewer. For the airlines, it's a little different but based on human pschology not technology. Folks, me included, will be very hinky to get inside anything going up with only "HAL" at the controls for a long while. But a good run from the types in my first paragraph will help answer the concerns in the second. By the way, imagine if you were in a Minuteman III ICBM launch control center or a boomer sub. Think most of the dudes/dudettes down there would hesitate about turning keys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cam Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 I know these sentiments have been expressed already, but our job is to kill the enemy, not to get killed ourselves. I wouldn't hesitate to pickle off a JDAM or launch a hellfire at a Hadji from a console at Creech, and I wouldn't feel bad about it afterwards. Wars aren't won by fighting fair. The enemy knows that, and we had better know it ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now