Are manned fighter jets an obsolete technology?

[bigred]

Well, there is no single supercomputer to destroy which controls one of the side of conflict.

Thanks Noel : obsure Frasier joke :

My point was basically regarding Kirk's comments in the episode to the topic overall, not the details.

 

[BStrong]

BStrong

He actually makes a good point. Unmanned weapons actually make war more likely, not less likely. After all, nobody has to put their asses on the line and has nothing to lose.

My pov is that other than making the decision makers front line infantry troops, nothing makes war "less likely."

Remote piloted vehicles are just another tool in the arsenal - nothing more.

 

[BStrong]

True enough.


I quite disagree and think you missed the point. It's not about being moral but courageous. It's a lot easier (and far less brave) to try and kill someone when the risk to yourself is minimal. Doesn't mean killing them is "better" or "worse," but certainly more courageous. Much as I hate the suicide bombers, admit it, that takes ultimate guts and conviction. Killing from a safe distance with no threat to yourself takes comparitively little.

Fanaticism isn't courage.

If one has already been deluded to believe that in death they will receive rewards not available on earth, there is no sacrifice involved in suicide in the name of the delusion.

 

[Klimax]

Thanks Noel : obsure Frasier joke :

My point was basically regarding Kirk's comments in the episode to the topic overall, not the details.

Yeah, right. Altough I read somewhere that those who controlled drones had quite big psychological problems. (AFAIK as if they were there)

 

[BStrong]

Yeah, right. Altough I read somewhere that those who controlled drones had quite big psychological problems. (AFAIK as if they were there)

The worst case of PTSD that I'm familar with involves an AF targeting officer who feels responsible for civilian deaths in Cambodia - he never left the ground - but was involved with target selection. He imagines the civilian death toll from the bombing as *his* particular responsiblity for the tour he served - in Thailand.

 

[Klimax]

Yeah, right. Altough I read somewhere that those who controlled drones had quite big psychological problems. (AFAIK as if they were there)

The worst case of PTSD that I'm familar with involves an AF targeting officer who feels responsible for civilian deaths in Cambodia - he never left the ground - but was involved with target selection. He imagines the civilian death toll from the bombing as *his* particular responsiblity for the tour he served - in Thailand.

Interesting. Strange what can happen in mind.

Anyway quick google located some articles about problems, but I think I saw it elsewhere...

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/08/ap_remote_stress_080708/
http://freedomsyndicate.com/fair0000/latimes00134.html

Can't say how good they are as I am not familiar with them.

 

[bigred]

Fanaticism isn't courage.

Never said it was.

If one has already been deluded to believe that in death they will receive rewards not available on earth, there is no sacrifice involved in suicide in the name of the delusion.

Yeah right. Of course there is. The survival instinct is strong, even in "brainwashed" people. Don't kid yourself that the people doing that aren't usually if not nearly always scared out of their freakin minds.

And suicide bombers are but one example; you're ignoring the broader point. Courage by definition means doing or facing something despite risk of severe injury/pain/etc. The bombers qualify. And so do soldiers in combat, the guy who saves some lady being attacked by a thug, it can even be an addict admitting they are addicts and seeking help to rehabilitate vs continuing to stay in denial, etc etc etc. All are courageous to one degree or other.

So while a fighter pilot in combat might not be more or less moral than one operating a drone from a safe distance, he is more courageous, as he is risking his life.

 

[Ziggurat]

I quite disagree and think you missed the point. It's not about being moral but courageous. It's a lot easier (and far less brave) to try and kill someone when the risk to yourself is minimal.

It's also a lot smarter, if the option is available. And it IS available to us. He was clearly expressing a preference for the dumber option. You might not like me using the term "moral" in this context, but since he expressed a preference for putting people on our side in danger, what other word would justify that?

But pick whatever words you want. You've still got to be an aspiring Darwin awardee to think that choosing more risk to yourself is its own virtue.

Much as I hate the suicide bombers, admit it, that takes ultimate guts and conviction.

Conviction? Yes. But courage?

"This answers the question about two men standing at the position of attention next to a bomb they have just set to explode [the USS Cole bombers]. The significant fact of organized violence is the fact of the organization. It is participatory and relational. The position of attention is the very opposite of a display of personal discipline or courage. It's a display of will-lessness, a posture of obedience to external control. It is a social pose, struck for eyewitnesses to see and report. It's like waving to your friends on the way off the planet. Whether that's a demonstration or courage or an act of cowardice is a point that could be argued, but it's also a point that isn't worth arguing — because what would the answer mean, or accomplish?"

 

[theprestige]

It's also a lot smarter, if the option is available. And it IS available to us. He was clearly expressing a preference for the dumber option. You might not like me using the term "moral" in this context, but since he expressed a preference for putting people on our side in danger, what other word would justify that?

But pick whatever words you want. You've still got to be an aspiring Darwin awardee to think that choosing more risk to yourself is its own virtue.



Conviction? Yes. But courage?

"This answers the question about two men standing at the position of attention next to a bomb they have just set to explode [the USS Cole bombers]. The significant fact of organized violence is the fact of the organization. It is participatory and relational. The position of attention is the very opposite of a display of personal discipline or courage. It's a display of will-lessness, a posture of obedience to external control. It is a social pose, struck for eyewitnesses to see and report. It's like waving to your friends on the way off the planet. Whether that's a demonstration or courage or an act of cowardice is a point that could be argued, but it's also a point that isn't worth arguing — because what would the answer mean, or accomplish?"

I dunno. I think a man with the courage to detonate a bomb while he was still inside its blast radius may also be a man with the courage to present himself formally at the moment of detonation.

Of course, he may also be a man with the courage to follow through with the plan, even while he's on his knees, doubled over, sweating bullets, puking his guts out, in full realization of the enormity of the act he is committing.

 

[bigred]

It's also a lot smarter, if the option is available. And it IS available to us.

There will always be a need for some manned fighters for reasons already explained, but you may note I wasn't arguing that unmanned fighters were "dumb."

You might not like me using the term "moral" in this context,

I neither like nor dislike it; that's irrelevant. I simply pointed out that morality is irrelevant as well as that was not the issue.

but since he expressed a preference for putting people on our side in danger, what other word would justify that?

Necessity (to an extent).

But pick whatever words you want. You've still got to be an aspiring Darwin awardee to think that choosing more risk to yourself is its own virtue.

I guess. Happily, nobody is saying choosing more risk to yourself is its own virtue.

Conviction? Yes. But courage?

The position of attention has nothing to do with our discussion FYI, since it has nothing to do with courage. Second, without even seeing it I can tell based on the quote above that the link isn't worth clicking on as whoever wrote it is a laughable moron. Courage does not equal discipline, for starters.

 

[BStrong]

Never said it was.


Yeah right. Of course there is. The survival instinct is strong, even in "brainwashed" people. Don't kid yourself that the people doing that aren't usually if not nearly always scared out of their freakin minds.

And suicide bombers are but one example; you're ignoring the broader point. Courage by definition means doing or facing something despite risk of severe injury/pain/etc. The bombers qualify. And so do soldiers in combat, the guy who saves some lady being attacked by a thug, it can even be an addict admitting they are addicts and seeking help to rehabilitate vs continuing to stay in denial, etc etc etc. All are courageous to one degree or other.

So while a fighter pilot in combat might not be more or less moral than one operating a drone from a safe distance, he is more courageous, as he is risking his life.

I saw bombers in person 03-04.

If you believe that life is **** and in death you'll be a king, wearing the vest isn't the same as it would be for you or I.

I hate to admit this, seeing as how the only thing aircraft are good for (imo) is jumping out of, but anybody who straps into combat aircraft has some courage on them.

 

[mike3]

Conviction? Yes. But courage?

"This answers the question about two men standing at the position of attention next to a bomb they have just set to explode [the USS Cole bombers]. The significant fact of organized violence is the fact of the organization. It is participatory and relational. The position of attention is the very opposite of a display of personal discipline or courage. It's a display of will-lessness, a posture of obedience to external control. It is a social pose, struck for eyewitnesses to see and report. It's like waving to your friends on the way off the planet. Whether that's a demonstration or courage or an act of cowardice is a point that could be argued, but it's also a point that isn't worth arguing — because what would the answer mean, or accomplish?"

Isn't "conventional" ("formalized" military-based, as opposed to terroristic) war also "organized violence"?

 

[bigred]

If you believe that life is **** and in death you'll be a king, wearing the vest isn't the same as it would be for you or I.

Never said it was.

I hate to admit this, seeing as how the only thing aircraft are good for (imo) is jumping out of, but anybody who straps into combat aircraft has some courage on them.

Anyone who goes into combat (ie the line of fire, not shooting from what is likely a safe distance) has courage, from infantry to combat pilots to special ops to etc.

 

[theprestige]

Isn't "conventional" ("formalized" military-based, as opposed to terroristic) war also "organized violence"?

Well, yes. That's rather the entire point, isn't it? A military pursues organization not to make all its soldiers courageous, but to make even its non-courageous soldiers effective in combat.

 

[theprestige]

Well, yes. That's rather the entire point, isn't it? A military pursues organization not to make all its soldiers courageous, but to make even its non-courageous soldiers effective in combat.

That said, modern conventional warfare doctrine calls for a high degree of individual initiative, leadership from the front, and small units executing successful plans based on their understanding of the commander's intent.

So personal courage may in fact be a much more significant factor in modern warfare than it was, say, for a Macedonian phalangite jam-packed together with four-score others, driven forward by the weight of a dozen more behind him.

 

[Ziggurat]

There will always be a need for some manned fighters for reasons already explained, but you may note I wasn't arguing that unmanned fighters were "dumb."

That's not what I meant at all. I'm saying that Andrew Wiggin's preference for the "courageous" option of putting your life at risk when it isn't necessary to do so is dumb.

I guess. Happily, nobody is saying choosing more risk to yourself is its own virtue.

I think that's exactly what Andrew Wiggin was suggesting.

Second, without even seeing it I can tell based on the quote above that the link isn't worth clicking on as whoever wrote it is a laughable moron. Courage does not equal discipline, for starters.

You have badly misinterpreted that quote, then, because the fact that courage and discipline are different is rather the whole point of that part.

You don't have to read any of it if you don't want to, but I recommend doing so while keeping in mind when it was written. It was prophetic.

 

[Ziggurat]

Isn't "conventional" ("formalized" military-based, as opposed to terroristic) war also "organized violence"?

Yes, of course it is. And?

 

[Mark6]

The survival instinct is strong, even in "brainwashed" people. Don't kid yourself that [suicide bombers] aren't usually if not nearly always scared out of their freakin minds.

Actually, there is evidence that they are not. In 1930's British Empire faced a rebellion in mostly Malaysia, where many (Muslim) natives would go for suicidal attacks. I do not remember if they actually strapped explosives to themselves, but they fought with seeming disregard for certain death. Were these Malaysians incredibly brave (as in, able to overcome fear), or simply opening door to Paradise and looking forward to death? The answer came when British began burying dead Malaysians wrapped in pigskin, thus denying them access to Muslim Paradise. The rebellion died out quickly.

When these rebels met something they actually were scared of, they were not so brave after all. But they were not afraid of death.

 

[BStrong]

Actually, there is evidence that they are not. In 1930's British Empire faced a rebellion in mostly Malaysia, where many (Muslim) natives would go for suicidal attacks. I do not remember if they actually strapped explosives to themselves, but they fought with seeming disregard for certain death. Were these Malaysians incredibly brave (as in, able to overcome fear), or simply opening door to Paradise and looking forward to death? The answer came when British began burying dead Malaysians wrapped in pigskin, thus denying them access to Muslim Paradise. The rebellion died out quickly.

When these rebels met something they actually were scared of, they were not so brave after all. But they were not afraid of death.

It was the Moro's in the Philippines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_Rebellion

The "buried in pigskin" legend is hard to nail down, but modern Jihadi's are exempt from any and all proscriptions on forbidden behavior while carrying out jihad.

 

[bigred]

Thanks for saving me the keystrokes.