Don't drones really cut into the MIC profits?

[NNN0LHI]

I mean think about it. There won't be any legitimate reason to Shock and Awe an entire country again, and then invade and occupy said country looking for one or more "bad", people any more like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just send up the drones and do what it used to take a huge army with artillery, tanks, an air force and tens of thousands of mercenaries to accomplish.

We spend a lot less money and a lot less people die. And we accomplish the same goal.

Next time we get some rapture ready Republican as president who is intent on bringing us to the brink of armageddon again we can say, "Hey, wait a minute. If you have a beef with some bad guy forget another war of biblical proportions. Get him with a drone and lets be done with it."

And the money we have been wasting on this MIC insanity can then be better spent improving our own country rather than destroying someone else's.

That is what I think.

Don

[Enrique]

1. the MIC needs enemies

the drones are fantastic at creating them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/in-yemen-us-airstrikes-breed-anger-and-sympathy-for-al-qaeda/2012/05/29/gJQAUmKI0U_story.html

[NNN0LHI]

4. Comparatively speaking

Do you think we made more enemies bombing, invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan then we have with drones?

Don

[morningfog]

13. That is a hard question to answer and one that I think goes to the heart of the debate.

The legality and constitutionality are argued ad infinitum, but I think those more theoretical debates are some what of a distraction. I say theoretical because we know from the last administration that Executives can violate both without serious repercussions.

Your question is really one of effectiveness as a tactic. The evidence suggests that both create enemies, and neither are necessary. Drone strikes may not have the national effect that an occupation does, but certainly radicalizes local populations. The drone campaign also significantly disrupts internal politics of the targeted country.

My question is isn't there a third, fourth and fifth option?

Let's get the MIC out of this. They are profiting handsomely from the increase in drone use.

[al_liberal]

2. Hell no they open a totally new market.

These demonstrations of how effective drones are is just to open the market of selling them around the world and here at home. If anything the MIC is driving this campaign. In reality, these things crash pretty frequently or the controller loses contact with it. Crashing a few million dollar drone is way more acceptable than crashing a few hundred million dollar planes.

[NNN0LHI]

5. Your last sentence tends to prove my point

[al_liberal]

12. Not the point I intended make.

This is a new market for the MIC all over the world. Just like we couldn't poison one of Castros cigar bands we won't be able to use drones to conduct war. Did you read the news that the US Navy is going from basically a 50/50 split to a 60/40 split tilted toward Asia? Look man all the MIC cares about is how many widgets they can sell. Drones are just the latest and greatest

[TBMASE]

3. You don't win a war

without putting boots on the ground

[NNN0LHI]

6. We had boots on the ground in Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan

Did we win there?

Don

[TBMASE]

7. I said you don't win

I didn't say you couldn't lose

[EFerrari]

8. Imho, the MIC will never let go of a cent.

They will re-distribute it but they will never, ever let go of one.

[DJ13]

9. No, they make more money

You can sell the military one bomber that will last for 20-30 years, or sell them 1,000 (or more) drones in the same period.

Also, like most lower budget high tech gadgets, existing drone models will be obsolete in ever shorter time periods, making a complete rebuilding of the inventory necessary every few years.

[NNN0LHI]

14. You only addressed one of the costs identified in the OP for a full scale invasion and occupation

>>>huge army with artillery, tanks, an air force and tens of thousands of mercenaries<<<

[limpyhobbler]

10. Yes and no.

Yes.
For one example take a look at Afghanistan, where Obama has been able to talk about pulling troops out. Did he say 2014 for combat troops? Anyway, because we have the drones it gives him a bit of cover to bring troops home. Because he can say hey we still have the drones.

I hear alot of understandable anger directed at the drones because of the "mistakes" where civilians (aka little kids) die. But I think there is much less loss of life or injury than was seen in traditional aerial bombings of the past. Our aerial bombings over Germany, Vietnam and Iraq were about a billion times more destructive than using targeted drone strikes. At least in the way we have used them so far. It also protects American troops since we don't have to send them in. It's alot cheaper than either "shock and awe" bombing or "boots on the ground".

On the other hand:
It makes it a little too easy for individuals to be targeted for personal reasons. Informants can feed the US bad info based on personal vendettas. Suddenly there is almost no cost to killing "enemies", especially if the mainstream media doesn't cover it.

Also, while we may be attempting to reduce violence by using more targeted strikes, a side effect of this is to make the action look less like a war and more like an assassination, or a murder. A war has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Drone strikes apparently will have no end. They seem to be the new normal in Pakistan and Yemen.

Once the MIC has perfected drone security overseas, will it turn the drones against the American people? Will every police department in the country, or on the planet, have a couple drones? That's where the real profits will be. They have already laid the groundwork for this in the FAA Re-authorization Act passed in February. http://news.discovery.com/tech/drones-sky-122302.html

Pakistan and Yemen are just where the new technology is being battle tested. Soon the Pakistan Army and local police will buy their drones from the MIC to control their own people. So will every urban police department and state Highway Patrol in America. This will represent a deeper merger of America's local police departments into the military industrial complex system.

I had been supporting drone strikes largely on the basis of what you said in the OP. I think drone strikes would be OK if we used them selectively only to get true terrorists. But because the MIC sits behind it, there is always going to be a push to use more and more drones, whether necessary or not, both at home and abroad.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. I'm sure we can count on major cuts in defense spending....

[NNN0LHI]

15. Even if the change brought no cuts in defense spending ...

... but we no longer needed to send our men and women out to be maimed or killed it would still be worth it.

Don

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. We don't "need" to send them out now to be maimed or killed...or maim and kill others.

It just makes the maiming and killing more palatable to the public.

[Swede]

16. Kinda makes the aircraft carrier fleet obsolete.

That oughta save a few billion.

[unhappycamper]

19. The newest Ford-class aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R Ford. is going to cost somewhere

between $16 billion dollars and $40 billion dollars sans people and aircraft. The Ford -class carriers are going to replace Nimitz-class carriers which averaged around $4.5 billion dollars sans people and aircraft.

Personally I think taking away food stamps, unemployment insurance, public transportation, Labor, Education, public services and things like that to pay for this crap is stupid.

[DirkGently]

18. Nope. "secret" wars go more places, plus

drones aren't capable of actually resolving conflicts. In fact, they're currently Al Quaeda's best recruiting tool. And the public hardly complains. Thus, they guarantee endless, global war.

They're perfect for the MIC.