The Drone Wars

[tmc]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Do you mean without the proper technology and precision? 30% is a pretty high civilian casualty rate.

The decision as to when and how to deploy is the key, and is a function of the technology. If you know that you have a 75% chance of putting your payload within a radius of 30 feet of your target, you should calculate the odds of non-targeted people being hit. Some may make the calculation that the target warrants that no consideration be given to anyone else either inside or outside the targeted area, hence the potential for greater casualties. On the other hand, the traditional means of eliminating the targeted person might require the ultimate death of many US soldiers, and many more civilians; which option is more humane?

Of course, we have already determined that our efforts to kill many of these targets, without the benefit of trial or a lawyer, is patently illegal as they are usually not found in a "hot" war zone. It is almost as bad as snatching people from the battlefield, or surrounding areas, and forcing them into confinement for years on end without such legal protections, and we know how evil that is. Having these individuals denied their due process, nay, their very lives, must be at least as odious, no?

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by tmc

The decision as to when and how to deploy is the key, and is a function of the technology. If you know that you have a 75% chance of putting your payload within a radius of 30 feet of your target, you should calculate the odds of non-targeted people being hit. Some may make the calculation that the target warrants that no consideration be given to anyone else either inside or outside the targeted area, hence the potential for greater casualties. On the other hand, the traditional means of eliminating the targeted person might require the ultimate death of many US soldiers, and many more civilians; which option is more humane?

Of course, we have already determined that our efforts to kill many of these targets, without the benefit of trial or a lawyer, is patently illegal as they are usually not found in a "hot" war zone. It is almost as bad as snatching people from the battlefield, or surrounding areas, and forcing them into confinement for years on end without such legal protections, and we know how evil that is. Having these individuals denied their due process, nay, their very lives, must be at least as odious, no?

Yes, and especially so if the practice results in such a ratio of civilian deaths. By "traditonal" means do you mean special forces assassin teams? It seems like they could better manage isolation of specific targets without all the collateral damage.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by tmc

I don't really follow your point about "direct" and "indirect" costs, I think you may mean that defense costs should be "fixed" irrespective of the size of our economy. Part of the problem is that the size of our economy is not attributed strictly to the absolute growth thereof, inflation plays a major role with the relative size of dollars at issue. As a result, there is no other way of making a comparison, as times and the value of money have changed. Do you really expect we should pay the same absolute dollar figure for defense as we did in 1962? Since the cost of wages have risen from what they were 40 years ago mean that the Armed Services need to follow suit with pay raises accordingly? Hasn't the cost of medical care for the troops and their families risen by an order of magnitude since then, how would you choose to reflect such cost increases? The cost of technology (armor for vehicles, smart munitions, UAV's) that have made the battlefield safer for our soldiers and civilians comes at a price, does it not?

Fixed costs generally do not change...they are ..well fixed.......I should have better called them variable costs that are not direct...that is, they may rise, but they should not rise in direct relationship to increases in revenue...

And so my point that no, the extraordinarily high and rising cost of our extensive military industrial infrastructure should NOT rise in direct relationship to increases in our GDP and the comparisons using this ratio are largely invalid.....

Beyond that, there is NO direct correlation in this increase cost to the outcomes we desire. One might say that this is particularly so since the ending of the cold war, but then we just found another reason to support the growing monster.....then we might have said, particularly so in the wasteful and unnecessary Iraq, but one could go back to many engagements post WWII and say the same....Vietnam comes to mind quickly.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Mexivoof

I thouhgt TMC made a some great points on drones. Being able to see both sides of the issue, I didn't know how to post, and he wrapped it up quite for me. Drones have a place, and should be used strategically. Not only are soldiers valuable, on a very cold/calculating front, it is also expensive to train new ones.

I also agree that days, at least in our current conflicts, f the military's purpose being to "kill people and break things" is over. To accomplish our objectives, we have to win the support of the civilians. You don't do that by killing them and randomly destroying their homes.

Note: Thank Rush Limbaugh for that quote

As for Jacko, how would you make a valid comparison of military spending in different time frames? % of GDP seems readily accepted, do you have a better index? Just askin'

Perhaps increases in line with inflation?...improving and more complex technology should drive costs DOWN, not up to get the same outcome I would think...and we are supposed to be getting smarter at this, right? I mean we are have been doing it (military engagement) the MOST and for the longest time of ANY single civilization on the face of the earth today...I have heard that our military spending is more than the next 50 countries COMBINED spending!

[Mexivoof]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Perhaps increases in line with inflation?...improving and more complex technology should drive costs DOWN, not up to get the same outcome I would think...and we are supposed to be getting smarter at this, right? I mean we are have been doing it (military engagement) the MOST and for the longest time of ANY single civilization on the face of the earth today...I have heard that our military spending is more than the next 50 countries COMBINED spending!

I'm not buying that line, France and England have been going at it since at least 1066, probably before, for one example.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Mexivoof

I'm not buying that line, France and England have been going at it since at least 1066, probably before, for one example.

Okay...so Post WWII.....
Do you still compare the duration and size of our military engagements to France and England? And here I thought you guys were always complaining about them not doing their fair share!

Any comments on the other points and the chart?

[Just Lucky]

We also export death to the third world.

There is less concern in policymaking circles about the negative impacts of arms sales, from fueling conflict to enabling major human rights abuses. In the case of the United States, this is true despite the fact that U.S. law calls for curbs on sales to countries engaged in a "gross and consistent" pattern of human rights abuses or to countries using U.S. weapons for aggressive purposes.[2]More often than not, these reasonable requirements are set aside in favor of the short-term strategic, political, and economic objectives set out above. This tendency has been even stronger since the 9/11 attacks, with limits on arms sales and security assistance to certain client nations being lifted in the name of winning support for the U.S. campaign against terrorism.

The purpose of this report is to look at the risks entailed by U.S. arms sales, with a focus on sales to the developing world, since this is where the vast majority of conflicts are to be found. There is much to criticize in the behavior of all of the major suppliers of arms, but as the world's number one arms exporting nation (see table 2, below), the United States and U.S. arms sales policy deserve special scrutiny.[3]

rms Transfer Agreements with the World by Supplier, 2000-07 (current dollars in millions) Nation 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 TOTAL 2000-07 United States 17,483 11,487 13,067 14,548 12,674 12,939 16,905 24,860 123,963 Russia 6,700 5,600 5,700 4,500 5,400 7,200 8,700 10,400 54,200 United Kingdom 600 600 700 600 6,400 2,800 3,100 9,800 24,600 France 4,600 4,200 500 2,500 2,200 8,000 500 1,800 24,300 Germany 1,200 1,200 1,000 1,500 1,700 1,700 1,900 1,500 11,700 China 600 1,200 400 500 700 2,500 800 3,800 10,500 Italy 200 1,100 400 600 600 1,400 900 900 6,100 All Other European 4,100 2,700 4,400 2,100 6,500 5,800 5,200 4,400 35,200 All Other 2,500 2,600 2,100 1,700 2,600 2,200 2,300 2,500 18,500 TOTAL 37,983 30,687 28,267 28,548 38,774 44,539 40,305 59,960 309,063 Source: Congressional Research Service, Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2000-2007, October 23, 2008.
Note: The Congressional Research Service figures differ from the Pentagon numbers cited in Table 1 for a variety of reasons; most notably the CRS figures are by calendar year rather than the U.S. fiscal year (October 1 through September 30) used by the Pentagon.

U.S. Weapons at War 2008 | The New America Foundation

Never mind, use the link.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Fixed costs generally do not change...they are ..well fixed.......I should have better called them variable costs that are not direct...that is, they may rise, but they should not rise in direct relationship to increases in revenue...

And they don't; they represent a much smaller proportion of our GDP than in the past, that is the whole point. If you used to pay ten cents out of every dollar you earned in tax, and now you pay five cents in tax, isn't that a tax cut? The fact that you only earned one hundred dollars a week forty years ago, when you paid tax at the rate of ten cents per dollar, does not mitigate the fact that your rate now, at five cents per dollar, is much lower, even though now you earn one thousand dollars a week and are thus liable for more tax in absolute dollar terms.

And so my point that no, the extraordinarily high and rising cost of our extensive military industrial infrastructure should NOT rise in direct relationship to increases in our GDP and the comparisons using this ratio are largely invalid.....

Beyond that, there is NO direct correlation in this increase cost to the outcomes we desire. One might say that this is particularly so since the ending of the cold war, but then we just found another reason to support the growing monster.....then we might have said, particularly so in the wasteful and unnecessary Iraq, but one could go back to many engagements post WWII and say the same....Vietnam comes to mind quickly.

This is especially true with regards many of the social welfare and education expenses paid for by the Federal government, isn't it? After generations of ever increasing rates of expenditures, we still have huge numbers of people in poverty, and the educational attainment of our students is lower each year than the previous; seems like a huge waste of money, doesn't it?

[snappysammy]

Originally Posted by Jacko

seems like we are not really getting much bang for the bucks we spend if that chart is accurate
maybe obama should just declare himself emperor of the world and declare martial law

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by tmc

And they don't; they represent a much smaller proportion of our GDP than in the past, that is the whole point. If you used to pay ten cents out of every dollar you earned in tax, and now you pay five cents in tax, isn't that a tax cut? The fact that you only earned one hundred dollars a week forty years ago, when you paid tax at the rate of ten cents per dollar, does not mitigate the fact that your rate now, at five cents per dollar, is much lower, even though now you earn one thousand dollars a week and are thus liable for more tax in absolute dollar terms.

This is especially true with regards many of the social welfare and education expenses paid for by the Federal government, isn't it? After generations of ever increasing rates of expenditures, we still have huge numbers of people in poverty, and the educational attainment of our students is lower each year than the previous; seems like a huge waste of money, doesn't it?

Well, it certainly is not good enough...I believe a large part of the reason it is not good enough has to do with the exorbitant amount of money we are paying out each year in prisons at the state level and in warfare and warfare infrastructure at the national level...

As I have often stated here, I believe there are a LOT of examples of more effective societies out there in areas like caring for their poor, for their sick and doing better in education than we do...the difference? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they are not spending these huge percentages of their GDP on ineffective warfare and ineffective prisons....they spend it on education and social welfare and get better outcomes.

Get it?

[snappysammy]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they are not spending these huge percentages of their GDP on ineffective warfare and ineffective prisons....they spend it on education and social welfare and get better outcomes.

ya think??

[cpfstich]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Well, it certainly is not good enough...I believe a large part of the reason it is not good enough has to do with the exorbitant amount of money we are paying out each year in prisons at the state level and in warfare and warfare infrastructure at the national level...

As I have often stated here, I believe there are a LOT of examples of more effective societies out there in areas like caring for their poor, for their sick and doing better in education than we do...the difference? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they are not spending these huge percentages of their GDP on ineffective warfare and ineffective prisons....they spend it on education and social welfare and get better outcomes.

Get it?

On a lighter note, hi Jack!

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by cpfstich

On a lighter note, hi Jack!

Hey Craig!

[Mexivoof]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Okay...so Post WWII.....
Do you still compare the duration and size of our military engagements to France and England? And here I thought you guys were always complaining about them not doing their fair share!

Any comments on the other points and the chart?

You may have a point. France was smart enough to bail on Indo-China. I believe we did Vietnam on our own, maybe the Aussies helped out. At the end of WWII the UK was in a nasty little Mid East war that created Isreal. I may be wrong but I think we steered clear of that one. Lets leave out all the squabbles where we were acting as part of NATO (Yugoslavia), or UN peacekeepping forces (Lebanon, Somalia). We let the Brits do the Falklands on their own, they let us play around in Greneda and Panama. In Gulf War I and II the Brits were right there. So if we ignore history from before you were born I'll concede the point,especially since Vietnam was longer and had more casualties then all of the others mentioned put together. (Of course using the same frame of reference, WWII never happened).

EDIT: I totally forgot Korea, I don't know if we had any allies in that one or not.

[cpfstich]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Hey Craig!

How'd the Peep Meet go? Someday...someday....