This is also the reason we oppose UN restrictions on the sale of guns in other countries. The more weapons we, Russia, France and the UK sell the more our collective arms industries make; and the more havoc we create the easier it is to justify military and economic expansionism.
Got any Bayonets? To go with that? What! No free bayonet with purchase?
Drones do not start wars, they fight them without putting our soldiers in harms way.
If we are going to go to war we need to use the best weapons to fight it. Drones fit the bill in many cases, especially if we are fighting an enemy that hides in places that we cannot go with ground troops. Anything we can do to keep our soldiers from getting killed and maimed it a great idea. Perhaps in future wars drones will do all of the fighting.
In reply to Justin Napolitano –
I doubt that. Without the killing of other humans, what is the point of going to war?
There will always be those who enjoy killing, and those who will supply the means to do so.
Anything we can do to avoid putting our soldiers in harm’s way, is what you are saying, I believe. In other words, as Cheney and Rumsfeld would say, the ends justify the means. There were more innocent civilians killed in the conquest of Iraq than the combined total of ALL casualties among the US and its allies. While we have, with no boots on the ground, killed dozens of Taliban, al Qaeda, and other insurgents through the use of drones, we have not fared any better with civilian casualties than when we had boots on the ground. Interestingly enough, the raid that got OBL resulted in only one casualty – OBL. And that was done with MANY boots on the ground, and against an unarmed opponent. There are, unfortunately in the drone wars, unseen casualties among those who must make instant decision – the distant drone operators, many of whom already display evident signs of PTSD. Either way you would choose to execute a war, with boots on the ground, with long-distance drones, with nuclears, whatever, while wars result in the death of many innocents, war also results in the death of innocence.
Which “Star Trek” villain was it who said “let loose the dogs of war”? War itself has a desensitizing influence on, first, those who fight the battles, and then, those who support the war. One of the first things we do to make it easier to bear the burden of killing our enemies is to dehumanize and demonize them. Everybody could not wait to see Sadam Hussein hanged and defiled, and we ran and reran the killing of Muammar Ghadafi, without shedding a tear. And we would do the same if we had a video of Hitler’s death. No matter what they have done, they all breathed the same air we do and came from the same Creator we did.
“Let Loose the Dogs of War” is a poem by Harry Riley. There are a number of books with the title “Let Slip the Dogs of War” (which is a quote from Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar”). By the way, of the books titled “Dogs of War” I liked Forsyth’s the best. For some reason I keep thinking that it was a Klingon saying that in “Star Trek”. Sounds like something a Klingon would say at any rate.