As an engineer that has designed these types of munitions there is a different philosophy used.

The weapon does not change the fact that targets are selected to be removed during war times. What can change is how precise those targets are taken out. When an advancement is made in technology like this one, the amount of civilian casualties that are caught in the cross fire are greatly reduced.

The expense put into war in modern days is almost exclusively towards reducing civilian damage instead of increasing damage in general. When was the last time that a first world country used the massively damaging weapons of nuclear, biological or chemical? That would be so much easier to take out a target, yet the civilian damage is massive.

Pondering reality,
Dregan

Physical War has slowed down but Economic War has replaced it.

Why invade a country with massive casualties when an economic takeover is just as effective and legal.

And once a population expands to bursting, instead of invading and taking land by force, they immigrate --the floodgates are open. (eg. China and the Midle East).

I'm fairly conflicted.

The issue with having an assassination program with virtually no oversight, run by a government whose people are all too willing to ignore the collateral damage it brings to foreigners is pretty obvious. You could argue that terrorists target the US because of genuine grievances (past blowback particularly from intervention during the Cold War motivated largely by opposing a communist threat over any moral considerations). From there you could argue that if only the US avoided foreign intervention, in time it would no longer be a terrorist target and have no need for such morally questionable action as using drones with significant civilian casualty risk.

I'm sceptical of this argument. For one I think the espoused goals of many terrorist organisations are often a sham. They may start as violent reactionaries to some genuinely held grievance. But mature organisations initiate a conflict with the US because notoriety brings financial support and more fighters which in turn improves their ability to project power, which is their ultimate goal. So I don't see US disengagement as a solution because terrorist attacks and beheadings of its nationals will continue to politically galvanise the US into action. At that point having being disengaged beforehand (lacking intel, ability to target leadership with drones) is just a disadvantage.

I also don't see a government other than the US capable and willing to rally a group of nations and take a leading role against a group like ISIS. It's fair to say that the US invasion of Iraq was largely responsible for destabilising an authoritarian government under Saddam that would have prevented the emergence of a Sunni group like this. But then, imagine if Saddam was still in power in reaction to the Arab Spring and the result was a situation like Syria today. It is all too possible that a similar group would have emerged in a power vacuum not caused by US intervention.

My point is, I agree it is horrible to see civilians being killed by drones and having to live under the constant terror of attack but I don't see a better solution. In fact it seems that drones are probably the solution with the least risk of civilian casualty. There is a reason why the Yemeni/Pakistani government tacitly support them even while publicly disavowing them.

Of course I would like to see them used more judiciously but I am sceptical that this is feasibly possible. I do not doubt that the CIA/Pentagon who run the program are familiar with blowback and the risks of inciting attacks on the US through the killing of innocents in these strikes. It is possible incentives for 'results' may lead to their overuse at the expense of civilian lives and the long term cost. Maybe more openness would be best. Then again more openness would serve as a rallying cry for existing terrorist organisations.

"Hamas....and Isreal are both equally to blame" Just absolute grade A bullshit. Israel is the cause of the conflict, the aggressor, the expansionist, the bully, the big stick, and (you'll love this) the Nazi in this situation. Hamas is born from Israel's actions as a misguided attempt at retaliation/defense.
When deaths are 30-1, with over 80% of the 30 being civilians (and 0% of the 1 being civilians, there's no such thing as an Israeli civilian), one side is far worse.
Once again, because you can't seem to understand, complaints about one party in a fiasco do not equate to support of the other party's methodology. Jumping to that conclusion is the epitome of ignance (once again, meaning intentional, un-fixable ignorance).
OMFG, really?!? Hamas uses their casualties as "propaganda", equated to Israel's over sold lies about their unconscionable actions that CAUSED those avoidable civilian casualties? Damn, you really have your head up Israel's ass so far you can't see reality at all, huh?
For it to stop, the perpetrators must see themselves for what they are, the perpetrators. That is why fault must be assigned properly, only the perpetrator can stop what they are doing, and they must understand their own horrendous actions to want to stop. Assigning them blame at least gives them the opportunity, if they could only open their ears and minds enough to see past their side's propaganda. Yes, I mean Israel.

Both of you are so angry and whip-ready with media regurgitated points that you fail to see whats in front of you. Israel may be winning the ground war but Palestine has won the Media war (for once....).

It is pretty obvious that nobody blames innocent civilians so lets just ignore that.

Hamas....and Isreal are both equally to blame. Both of you are so busy trying to point fingers because of a lopsided body count that you fail to realize that its not the 'equivalency of an equation' that's wrong.....its the fact that the equation exists at all that is wrong....and it does exist. Saying that it doesn't exists equates past present and future Israeli deaths to nothing.

if there were equal deaths on both sides then it would be okay? Of course not. It's the morons on both sides that keep picking at each other that are to blame. By pointing your finger at one side and declaring "you're worse" you legitimize and by default PROMOTE the other side. Unless you qualify your statement, which you didn't.

All you said was "Pro-Israeli Propgandists...braaahhh." Oh hey you could have mentioned that Hamas probably uses urban casualties as their own method of propaganda.


And Asmo you said "I guarantee you...there would be more Israelis swinging."

SO WHAT?

Hang the responsible and move on. The moment you say...told you there were more Israelis responsible is the moment the Israelis pick up the fight again or vice versa.

So yeah..I stand by my statement that it is the epitome of ignorance to promote either side in this. They are both (Hamas and Israeli elites) bloodthirsty morons and it doesn't matter whose at fault...it just needs to stop.

So the wholesale killing of children is okay depending on the circumstances?

Thousands of rockets which rarely hit anything versus massive bombing of a populated area that results in 80% civilian casualties...how about we agree that both are terrorism--and that Israel is much better at it than Hamas?

Probably because this is a *Commercial.

On a funny-but-not-haha-funny note, this race had enough accidents and casualties that there is a Wikipedia page dedicated to this topic:
List of 24 Hours of Le Mans fatal accidents.

There has been no assult on the rancher's property, it's all on Federal land.
This may be an example of why dumb americans want guns, but this is also an example of many people that SHOULDN'T be allowed to have guns. If you want a rifle to take on the federal government, you are an idiot. The feds have tanks and missiles, who wins EVERY TIME in that fight? Just ask (edit, I meant Koresh and the Waco people). His suggestions amount to telling children to go play in the freeway because it belongs to them as public land, and the fed has no right to reserve it for cars. I wish this guy walked his own talk and was standing right there in the front baiting the feds, he might be the first casualty.

This is not about 'defending freedom', it's about defending a criminal that believes federal land is his to use and damage as he sees fit, even after being told clearly and repeatedly that he has to pay for it, (which he refused to) and can only use it for certain purposes for a certain time period (which have ended long ago).

His example of allowed use, the solar company, is forced to follow environmental laws and not damage the land/environment, cattle don't follow laws and do damage the land badly. Solar and wind don't hurt turtles, cattle and vehicles (used to manage the cattle) do. Proven.
EDIT: I recall many 'ranchers' on federal land intentionally killing turtles because they burrow, making holes that cattle get hurt in.

I agree with Yogi, this guy is massively deluded and is attempting to spread his stupidity...suggesting that non-citizens take on the fed in this kind of action? WHAT?!? Also claiming that the fed managing it's land is 'facist'. Just DUH, dude. I might downvote this video for mis-information, lack of understanding, and just plain ridiculous ideas if I could.
I note this blowhard isn't standing with the rancher armed...maybe he doesn't WANT to be shot?

I don't think any imagination is required to know the American reaction if an enemy unilaterally declared war on America and blew up buildings in American cities from the skies. You and might disagree who set that precedent first though.

There is good news though on this front. There haven't been any new Drone strikes in 2014 and the Pakistani military has stepped in using heavier and more conventional bombardment of the TTP. It'll mean increased casualties, but if we are really lucky they will stick it out with boots on the ground and enforce a long term enforcement.

@ChaosEngine, At least take the topic seriously. You can't really think Arizona and North Waziristan have meaningful similarities, can you? If you truly know that little about tribal Pakistan then you should go read up for a long time before rejoining the conversation.

Arizona citizens pay taxes to America, cast votes for American elections and have American funded schools, roads and police. Importantly, the police in Arizona enforce the laws of the American government. Same goes for Texas. The same DOES NOT go for North Waziristan. Pakistani police don't even try to enter most of North Waziristan because the TTP would kill them.

Militants from Arizona and Texas aren't sending weekly attacks against schools and civilians throughout the rest of America, killing hundreds of people every month. Meanwhile, that is exactly what militants from North Waziristan are doing throughout Pakistan today and for a very long time now.

In the even that militants in Arizona and Texas DID commit even one such act, the American police would go in and make arrests. In North Waziristan, the police can not as stated before. More significantly though, not even the Pakistani military is willing to go in and get the militants for the casualties they would take.

You can't just willy nilly decare those situations comparable if you expect your argument to be taken seriously. Given that ground situation, it doesn't take a brilliant leap in deduction to see the very high percentage of top TTP officials hit by drones and reach the conclusion that the Pakistani military isn't entirely unhappy about the strikes.

I again repeat that dropping bombs on another nation is an act of war. You have a good point about that not being something America should be able to do lightly. You are wrong though about why Pakistan isn't declaring war back on America. It isn't fear of America, it is convenience of America JOINING their side in a civil war they are unwilling to call by name.

Ok, let's change the territory. Forget Muslims and Al Queada and the Middle East and all that.

Let's roll the clock back 30 years, and let's find a comparable scenario where we have stateless actors living in a country who's reluctant to extradite them (either through inability to locate them or because they don't really like the country asking for extradition). These actors are responsible for a number of atrocities committed in the name of a political cause that has some tacit support by the locals of this country.

So we have the IRA hiding in the Republic of Ireland for bombing civilians in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Now let's assume the British have drones. Is it acceptable for them to drone strike targets within the Republic leading to civilian casualties? If not, why not?

Hell, let's go forward 20 or 30 years to when Iraq or Afghanistan have drones and the USA refuses to extradite the people that illegally invaded their country and then committed crimes against humanity there. Is it ok to drone strike Texas to get to GW Bush?

This is not a door we want to open. You're happy with it now because you're the ones holding the big stick, but legitimising international assassination because you don't get your way is a recipe for a nightmare.

For balance, most of the towns where drone strikes have been made already were completely controlled by people who hated America and harbored or cooperated with those actively working on killing Americans. Take a tour of the hundreds of drone strike targets in tribal Pakistan and you are surveying a region accepting the rule of militants so extreme that the Pakistani government is a secular heresy worthy of death to them. Pakistani law including the death sentence for blasphemy. Those regions being under such strong control of the militants that the Pakistani military can't go there for the casualties they would take trying to do so. The welcome for Americans(long before drone strikes were made) would have been even more vicious.

It is important to state that for as much legitimate reason to 'hate' American foreign policy as there is, there exist huge numbers of people who hate America for their own petty, vile and psychotic reasons. The Islamic fundamentalists that see Pakistan as too secular are plainly one such example, and saying they only hate America because they are justified is making excuses for monsters.

While I agree with your sentiment, I think there's also the issue that what's "perceived" as barely over etc. I've done filming like this for PSA's where we can't actually portray anyone committing an infraction.

But the point the video is making is pretty clear: if someone else makes a mistake, you better be prepared. You may not be at fault, but you're now involved, so do something that'll help minimize the casualties.

Additionally, perceived speed and actual speed can vary greatly. If driver A is used to driving that road at X speed, but driver B drives X+Y, then driver A will overestimate the amount of time they have.

Lastly, 10 MPH in speed makes a huge difference in impact velocities. Used to be pretty standard to say you'll walk away from 50, but carried away at 60.

bcglorf is spouting the same old Zionist BS.

Israel has been the aggressor and involved in terrorism in the region since it was created by the UK at the Rothchild's bequest in 1917 (The Balfour Declaration).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

Casualties after they invaded Gaza ? 13 Israelis 1385 Palestinians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_War

It's obvious Israel is a apartheid state, taking away rights from innocent non-Jews who have lived there longer than any Israeli, as most Israeli's are European immigrants.

Israel's reaction to Iran's new peace process is obvious once you realize they do not care about peace, they want land.

Why else would you have a racist as a 'Foreign affairs minister'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman
...who has threatened way worse on Palestine than anything I've heard from Iran.