Science Undecided on Room Temperature Superconductors

[pErvinalia]

Western airforces don't carpet bomb any more, as far as I am aware. The difference is in the pilot and associated aircraft being able to better assess whether a strike should go ahead. Maybe also a case of different missile technologies too.

Okay, that's just plain ignorance of how drones are used.

Drones are MUCH better at precision strikes than piloted jet aircraft precisely because they are low-speed aircraft that can loiter in the target's vicinity unnoticed for a long time. They are equipped with incredibly effective sensor suites including gyro-stabilized visible light and thermal camera systems that can zoom in on an individual building, vehicle and even on an INDIVIDUAL and identify him and then automatically track movement of anyone tagged by the pilots who fly the drones (there's two of them, one flys the drone and the other one operates the sensor suite) and can track an individual or vehicle for many miles to a meet point while waiting for other targets to assemble before shoving a Hellfire guided missile right up the target's ass with incredible precision. Moreover, the drone pilots don't operate in an oversight vacuum fraught with bureaucratic delays over authorizations to fire or revocations of such authorizations that must be transmitted through several layers of military bureaucracy to get to a jet pilot. Instead, the drone operators are supervised by command personnel right at the operating point, and these commanders can approve or override a shoot decision in an instant.

Compared to a jet and pilot flying 400 knots on a deployment pass who at best has a radar or IR lock on a designated target who has mere second in which to deploy the weapon effectively and very little ability to assess anything at all because he does not have, nor could he operate and fly at the same time, the sophisticated sensor suite that makes drones so incredibly effective in both destroying the desired target and avoiding non-combatant casualties where it is possible to do so.

You need to do more research before you spout off about things you clearly know nothing about.

There's been plenty of reports and docos featuring both drone and real pilots highlighting the fact that drone pilots operate more in a "video game" mode and have less situational awareness than live pilots.

[JimC]

The whole thing about the dropping of the atom bombs in WW2 needs to be judged in the context of the times, and the quite reasonable prediction of hundreds of thousands of allied casualties (plus at least as many Japanese). Serious military historians would say that, pragmatically, the rapid ending of the war saved many more lives than those lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

[pErvinalia]

And you've repeatedly called for nukes to be used in the middle east.

A: You lie.
B: On the occasions I have suggested it...

[Seth]

Yet you advocate murdering millions of innocent civilians in Syria just because ISIS is based there.

You're a liar. I have never advocated doing that. You have however repeatedly erected this false accusation of a strawman.

Yes it does, but the problem is that no national leader since Alexander the Great has known how to go to war. When you go to war you unleash the dogs of war and tell them to destroy the enemy utterly, and as quickly and efficiently as possible with a minimum of casualties to themselves and you give them any weapon or tool they need to do so. You destroy the enemy's troops, infrastructure, supply lines, dams, power stations, sewer plants, water plants and anything else the enemy can use. You bring them to their knees so they surrender and then you tell them they'd better behave or you'll bomb them right back into the stone age again and again and again, as many times as it takes, without mercy or quarter.

Did you see a single reference to the intentional targeting of non-military targets or non-combatants?

Nope.

Yep, in the two links above that. And in that reference you suggest bombing a country back to the stone age. How is that NOT targetting non-military targets??

Because it refers to modern infrastructure, Dopey, not non-combatants.

Yet again I wonder why I am doing this. You are a dishonest cunt of the highest order.

High praise coming from you.

As for "any weapon or tool" that of course excludes WMDs precisely because they cannot be specifically targeted at valid military targets and combatants.

Nice try though, but FAIL!

What a truckload of bollocks. Just more of your logical fallacies - shifting the goal posts (and outright dishonesty).

This conversation is going on ignore. You're a major dishonest shit.

Ah, the ignore list, the last refuge of tiny minds.

[Seth]

Western airforces don't carpet bomb any more, as far as I am aware. The difference is in the pilot and associated aircraft being able to better assess whether a strike should go ahead. Maybe also a case of different missile technologies too.

Okay, that's just plain ignorance of how drones are used.

Drones are MUCH better at precision strikes than piloted jet aircraft precisely because they are low-speed aircraft that can loiter in the target's vicinity unnoticed for a long time. They are equipped with incredibly effective sensor suites including gyro-stabilized visible light and thermal camera systems that can zoom in on an individual building, vehicle and even on an INDIVIDUAL and identify him and then automatically track movement of anyone tagged by the pilots who fly the drones (there's two of them, one flys the drone and the other one operates the sensor suite) and can track an individual or vehicle for many miles to a meet point while waiting for other targets to assemble before shoving a Hellfire guided missile right up the target's ass with incredible precision. Moreover, the drone pilots don't operate in an oversight vacuum fraught with bureaucratic delays over authorizations to fire or revocations of such authorizations that must be transmitted through several layers of military bureaucracy to get to a jet pilot. Instead, the drone operators are supervised by command personnel right at the operating point, and these commanders can approve or override a shoot decision in an instant.

Compared to a jet and pilot flying 400 knots on a deployment pass who at best has a radar or IR lock on a designated target who has mere second in which to deploy the weapon effectively and very little ability to assess anything at all because he does not have, nor could he operate and fly at the same time, the sophisticated sensor suite that makes drones so incredibly effective in both destroying the desired target and avoiding non-combatant casualties where it is possible to do so.

You need to do more research before you spout off about things you clearly know nothing about.

There's been plenty of reports and docos featuring both drone and real pilots highlighting the fact that drone pilots operate more in a "video game" mode and have less situational awareness than live pilots.

Situational awareness is not the key to drone strikes. Indeed, the ability of a drone flight team to concentrate on their respective duties; flying and observing/targeting, is what makes drone strikes so precise and effective. You try spending an hour watching a building waiting for a terrorist to appear so you can blow him up when your going 400 knots in a single-seat aircraft. You won't see shit because your aircraft makes so much noise anybody within ten miles knows you're there.

Ground attack aircraft are very good at some things, like dropping large amounts of ordinance on large targets or launching pre-guided missiles and JDAMS at targets that are being laser-designated by ground troops. Where that is not possible, aircraft dropping bombs is pretty much an area-target exercise rather than a precision strike.

The very fact that the drone operators are sitting comfortably in a facility far away from the battlefield reduces the stress and therefore the potential for mistakes on their part because they don't have to worry about somebody stuffing a stolen ground-to-air missile up their tailpipe. And when they become fatigued they can be quickly relieved by another pilot, whereas an aircraft pilot has to finish the mission and return to base to be relieved.

I think you just don't like the "video game" mode so you're bashing drone strikes because you don't think it's "fair" that drone pilots aren't at risk when they fire a missile at the enemy. I think you WANT our pilots and soldiers to get killed because you are actually an Islamic terrorist sympathizer who revels in their actions because it negatively affects "the rich" and "big corporations."

[pErvinalia]

I'm just pointing out facts. We shouldn't be bombing anyone in Syria, drones or regular.

[pErvinalia]

Hahaha, missed the last part of your post (as usual, I only scan for the usual keywords to determine the worth of your post). Yes Seth I'm an Islamist Marxist evil doer.

[Seth]

I'm just pointing out facts. We shouldn't be bombing anyone in Syria, drones or regular.

No, you're pulling factoids directly out of your ass and I'm proving it, which is why you're backpedaling now. As for Syria, we agree. Let them eat each other if they want. It's just a bunch of Muslims killing another bunch of Muslims who are killing the Muslims back. Who gives a fuck. The more dead Muslims in Syria, the fewer of them will end up here. They can take the peace at their will, but they won't because they've been doing the exact same thing to one another for 1400 years. I say let them. I say give them what they need to finish each other off, leaving Syria a desert wasteland, which is what it's always been anyway.

[pErvinalia]

I'm not backpeddling at all. There's plenty of documentary evidence concerning drone vs real pilots. You like drones simply because it involves less Mercan deaths.

[Seth]

I'm not backpeddling at all. There's plenty of documentary evidence concerning drone vs real pilots.

No there isn't, you're just making that shit up.

You like drones simply because it involves less Mercan deaths.

Too fucking right! Our soldier's job is not to die for their country, it's to make the other guy die for his. I'd be happy if the American troop casualty list from mideast conflict was zero and the Muslim terrorist body count was 100 percent.

[JimC]

I'm just pointing out facts. We shouldn't be bombing anyone in Syria, drones or regular.

Well, we probably shouldn't be bombing in the rather chaotic fashion of the moment, with each nation choosing targets based on political expediency (particularly the Russians...)

But at least a fair proportion of allied strikes have been very specifically targeted, and destroyed ISIS vehicles, HQs etc.

Any missile or bomb which destroys those bastards, and only those bastards, is a win for humanity. But currently, this is not being done as surgically as one would wish, from media reports I have read...

[rainbow]

I'm just pointing out facts. We shouldn't be bombing anyone in Syria, drones or regular.

Well, we probably shouldn't be bombing in the rather chaotic fashion of the moment, with each nation choosing targets based on political expediency (particularly the Russians...)

But at least a fair proportion of allied strikes have been very specifically targeted, and destroyed ISIS vehicles, HQs etc.

Any missile or bomb which destroys those bastards, and only those bastards, is a win for humanity. But currently, this is not being done as surgically as one would wish, from media reports I have read...

There is probably no better way of converting moderates into extremists than by bombing them.

... which is what happened in New York on September 11, 2001.

It turned a whole lot of reasonable Merkins into bloodthirsty warmongers.

[pErvinalia]

I'm just pointing out facts. We shouldn't be bombing anyone in Syria, drones or regular.

Well, we probably shouldn't be bombing in the rather chaotic fashion of the moment, with each nation choosing targets based on political expediency (particularly the Russians...)

But at least a fair proportion of allied strikes have been very specifically targeted, and destroyed ISIS vehicles, HQs etc.

Any missile or bomb which destroys those bastards, and only those bastards, is a win for humanity. But currently, this is not being done as surgically as one would wish, from media reports I have read...

It's simply generating the next generation of terrorists.

[JimC]

I'm just pointing out facts. We shouldn't be bombing anyone in Syria, drones or regular.

Well, we probably shouldn't be bombing in the rather chaotic fashion of the moment, with each nation choosing targets based on political expediency (particularly the Russians...)

But at least a fair proportion of allied strikes have been very specifically targeted, and destroyed ISIS vehicles, HQs etc.

Any missile or bomb which destroys those bastards, and only those bastards, is a win for humanity. But currently, this is not being done as surgically as one would wish, from media reports I have read...

It's simply generating the next generation of terrorists.

When it goes wrong, and knocks over a house full of civilians, sure.

But when a missile destroys an SUV full of ISIS soldiers, it does the world (and the poor civilians they terrorise) a favour...

[Brian Peacock]

So if nuclear weapons are immoral, because of their indiscriminate effect and lasting environmental impact (although if the swift eradication of a city and its infrastructure is determined to be a legitimate military objective then what are we complaining about if nuclear weapons can do that job?), then what about the morality of nuclear power? It is morally justifiable to build and run facilities which have such an indiscriminate and deleterious effect and a lasting environmental impact when they go wrong, or are subjected to natural disasters, or perhaps are targeted by conventional, moral weaponry in a time of conflict? Were those who developed nuclear power, and those who continue to develop and maintain this resource, immoral agents?

Over to you Seth.