Serious question: Which is worse -- hundreds of B-17s or 1 drone

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Thousands of civilians in a single night were killed trying to bomb a ball bearing factory -- not troops or commanders or even a weapons factory -- a factory that made a part used in other factories. The carnage was repeated time and again over the course of years. This is NOT to diminish civilians killed in drone strikes. However, if the intended target is a legitimate target of war then how is a weapon that kills dozen people with precision worse than thousands of weapons relying on gravity and dumb luck?

It seems the real debate is whether or not the targets are legitmate. If the targets are legitmate I don't think anyone would shed a tear if a bombing raid that killed Hitler also accidently killed Eva Braun. If the targets are NOT legitmate I'd like someone to please show why they think Obama would perpetrate the deliberate killing of innocent people that present no threat to anyone.

The weapon is only as good or evil as the man holding it.

[Vincardog]

1. Please name the WAR drones are being used in.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. President Obama seems to think it's a war. He certainly acts as if it is.

He even campaigned on this point in 2008.

I suppose some may contest that as the targets are non-state actors but this would not be the first time in history this has been the case. Nor would it be the first time in history a government used its military to respond to non-state actors. If it is the semantical point of the absence of an eponymous Declaration of War that would be impossible by definition as our co-belligerent is not a nation-state. There is no enemy to name apart from those acting in concert to attack the US and its allies and interests. And as this enemy tends to use planes, RPGs, IEDs, etc and operates outside US jurisdiction they possess capabilities that US law enforcement cannot match.

[Vincardog]

8. Luckily the Constitution says PBO can not act without a Congressional declaration. The problem is

Bush the lesser and PBO are both bowing to the will of the MIT.
That does not change the fact that their actions are illegal and constitutional.

Please name for me that non-state co-belligerent?

note TERROR is a tactic not an enemy.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. Typos aside I think you're aware of the AUMF from Sept 18, 2001

As congress issued the AUMF that seems to indicate their consent, per constitutional requirement. If your argument were true we should be seeking Obama's impeachment, not re-election.

And no, I don't buy the "But a GOP president would be worse because..." argument. You can't call someone a fascist/imperialist/war aggressor and vote for them because you like their social policy. That's the moral equivalent of saying Mussolini was a fascist but at least he made the trains run on time. Personally, I don't see Obama as a fascist/imperialist/war agressor. As much as I despise the war I don't see an ounce of malice or ambition in the President.

[Vincardog]

24. Please tell me when does the AUMF expire? Who or what has to surrender to end this FAUX war?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. No AUMF or declaration of war has an expiration date. Why would you even ask that?

When do laws against mass murder expire? How do you know when you've won? When does the last mass murderer surrender?

[Vincardog]

30. "No AUMF has an expiration date"? When does this FAUX war end?

t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. Just like any other war.

when 1 or both sides stop shooting.

[Vincardog]

33. WARS end with surrender. Who has to surrender in your mind to end this illegal "war"?

[randome]

35. I think you're missing the point.

None of us want war to continue, no matter how convoluted the reasoning goes for our supreme leaders.

[Vincardog]

38. Allowing this illegal AUMF allows for perpetual state of war. That was their GOAL. That

is what I am opposed to. Some posters here seem to be wanting to go along with it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. The laws of war throughout history have long recognized

that some groups do not represent national governments but that governments are entitled to respond to those groups militarily. Pirates would be an example. Just because al Qaeda or similar grou[s are not a government doesn't mean that responding to them militarily is illegal in and of itself.

[sarisataka]

44. A war ends when

one side has achieved and secured its war aims, i.e. goals.
That may be anything from seizing territory, to unconditional surrender to stopping an activity e.g. Barbary pirates.

The question therefore is what are our war aims? Interminable wars occur when politicians do not give that question thought. They never know if/when they have won.

[stevenleser]

36. The UN certainly thinks its a war and will hold anyone participating accountable to the rules of war

The idea that something cannot be a war because it is not declared is silly.

You are conflating a reasonable argument on the Constitutionality of the President's actions with an obvious reality of what is happening. No one from anywhere needs to declare anything for a war to happen.

[Fumesucker]

2. The squadrons of B17s came to an end..

The drone war will never end..

One is not better or worse than the other but at least one of the horrors ended, in less than half the time the US has been in Afghanistan.


“There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. ”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. If AQ were ever truly broken

I don't see Obama just indiscriminately picking random goat-herds for vaporization. I don't see Mr. Panetta coming to the President and saying, "Mr. President, ever since that strike last week their network has gone silent. Either they don't have a replacement or nobody wants the job." only to have Obama say, "Eh -- hit 'em again a few more times just to remind them who's boss."

Of course, even with my brief readings of history the one thing that seems to painfully stick out is that humans are never without war. Even if they don't seek it, it finds them. In fact, the more peaceful the nation the more likely they are to be attacked by others. "The war" always comes to an end but "war" is a constant.

Personally, I think dropping books -- metaphorically speaking -- would serve us far better but I'm just a naive, silly 23 year old girl, so what do I know -- except your 2nd Sun Tzu quote makes me think maybe Sun Tzu was a naive, silly 23 year old girl.

[Fumesucker]

14. Emmanuel Golds.. err.. Al Qaeda rather is very useful to the powers that be..

A nebulous enemy that can always be used to provide justification of whatever particular piece of authoritarian overreach is being instigated at any given moment.

Al Qaeda is as likely to go away as "drugs" are likely to go away as a means of keeping the population reacting out of fear.

If you listen to the right wingers they are still scared of the Weathermen .

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

[2on2u]

3. War is one thing, turning it into a Nintendo game is quite another. n/t

[upaloopa]

4. The B-17s were used as terror weapons

At the fist part of WWII Roosevelt was against targeting civilians. During the Battle of Brittan some German planes accidental flew off course and bombed English civilians. Brittan's air minister Sir Author Harris was in favor of bombing civilians with the idea that the killing of civilians would shorten the war since the enemy would sue for peace sooner. Also he felt that Germany bombed civilians first in Poland and Great Brittan.

The U S Army Air Force said that it only intended to bomb military targets and as you say some bombs went astray and killed civilians.
Toward the end of the war when the U S had control of the air the bomber groups were running out of military targets. They were not supposed to return with bombs so they picked out what were secondary targets and targets of opportunity. Most of these were civilian targets and the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg and Berlin was intentionally killing of civilians.

I think the drone attacks are just as bad.

[ag_dude]

6. Agreed.

We should have been much less harsh when dealing with the Nazi regime.

[upaloopa]

9. I wasn't making a value judgment just stating what I know as history. I wasn't there.

The drone attacks are just as bad because they also are terror weapons.

When I was in Viet Nam I knew we were killing civilians. The thought then was that it saved American lives. The enemy also killed civilians but we said they are worse then we were because they did it to terrorize people. But so many years later we can see that that war was unnecessary. I think that most wars after WWII were unnecessary and the killing of civilians could have been avoided. Like in Viet Nam some people can find a justification for killing civilians. That doesn't make it right.

[Zanzoobar]

19. They accidentally flew across the English channel?

Goddam stupid Nazis!

[deaniac21]

51. Actually, on Hitler's orders,

the Luftwaffe switched tactics from attacking military targets and began bombing cities, mainly London, to try and break British morale. Read a book.

[SoutherDem]

5. Good question

But I don't know if the issue is bomber or drone, but should we or shouldn't we.

Yes, people are mad because innocent people have been killed and some are asking if this is an undeclared war.

For my self drones are better than bombers and much better than troops on the ground, but that is assuming it must be one of the three.

I don't know the answer to the should we or not question. I see both sides of the argument.

[Robb]

12. The problem with drones is that warfare didn't end when it was supposed to.

At least I suspect that's the feeling from a lot of folks who consider themselves "anti-drone." Sort of like being "anti-bullet," we say, but it's not quite the same. The drone represents a big failure on the part of human beings.

Consider how much more of warfare we see in our homes, through television and the internet, than we did in the days of Dresden. We're not going to see bombing runs like that any more -- because we'd see bombing runs like that on video later, and wars are fought and won in the news now as much as the battlefield.

Drones are as much a product of the 24-hour news cycle as they are a product of the technology they need to fly. That warfare did not end under the closer scrutiny of the latter part of the last century -- but rather morphed into something we could shunt away and hide from our own eyes -- suggests we've collectively decided warfare is necessary. At least, necessary enough to craft elaborate ways of deluding ourselves about the horror of it all.

That's really, I think, what bothers us about them. Not that they're somehow a worse weapon, but rather what their proliferation says about us.

[Bake]

13. I don't care for drone warfare. But it's better than carpet bombing.

Bake

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic." Stalin

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Mohandas K. Gandhi

I guess the deaths of a "few" is OK with you as long as it's not in the millions.

[rubluetoo]

16. Drones are the landmines of the 21st century

They may be more accurate... but these aerial landmines leave us morally and ethically bankrupt.

Given the scale of life in the cosmos, one human life is no more than a tiny blip. Each one of us is a just visitor to this planet, a guest, who will only stay for a limited time. What greater folly could there be than to spend this short time alone, unhappy or in conflict with our companions? Far better, surely, to use our short time here in living a meaningful life, enriched by our sense of connection with others and being of service to them.

Dalai Lama

[Electric Monk]

23. Nice post. Interesting point. Welcome to DU :) nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

42. A drone is nothing like a landmine (or any other persistent weapon).

Drone targets are uniquely selected and discriminate in nature. When the war or mission is done, action is terminated and the threat ceases. It comes home and lands.

When a war or conflict or military action/movement is terminated, the threat from landmines persists. When they lay landmines, there are rarely reords of amount, let alone records of location for each one. They become impossible to retrieve or destroy and will sit hidden for years... even decades after a war is over. The threat is not only indiscriminate, it is persistent.

Bad analogies are the landmines of DU.

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. Well since there are only a handful of B-17s and none are used as bombers...

I'd say 1 drone is worse.

[morningfog]

18. The real debate is (or should be) is ANY military action needed?

It is a false question to offer only "hundreds of B-17s" or "1 drone".

It is a 20th century answer to a 21st century problem. As long as we use the antiquated answer of superior weaponry, we will not be effective or reach our goal, albeit ill defined.

[Zanzoobar]

20. What did Eva Braun ever do?

She was only boning the sick fuck. She didn't deserve a bomb dropped on her just for taking Mein Fuhrer's weiner schnitzel in der backensiden!

We need more precision military strikes to blot out the real baddies.

[sudopod]

21. Which is worse?

Yemenis doing jumping jacks, or Hitler?

[cwydro]

22. We create new enemies every day.

We will not win in Afghanistan.

Too bad Obama did not read history.

[dawg]

25. To me, it's a question of due process.

The actual weapon used is irrelevant. We could just as easily send an assassin. Essentially, that is exactly what we are doing - sending a robotic assassin.

To the extent these weapons are used in a war zone, I have no problem with them at all. In fact, to the extent they reduce collateral damage, they are a positive development.

However, sending them into the sovereign space of countries where we are not at war in order to take out individuals the administration "alleges" to be terrorists is too much for me to condone. Do I trust this President? Yes. Do I trust all potential Presidents in the future? Hell no. And that is why I'm generally opposed to the extraordinary powers claimed by this President as well as the one who immediately preceded him.

[malthaussen]

54. Come on, man, Colbert already covered this

"Due process" is just "a process you do." And this president you trust is the one who put that into writing.

-- Mal

[Posteritatis]

26. I don't think treating Afghanistan and the Second World War as equivalent is very useful. (nt)

[Zanzoobar]

27. Whichever one is dropping bombs on me.

[99Forever]

29. How about we do neither? n/t

[Blue_Tires]

32. 1. Why does it have to be either/or?

2. Drones get it wrong just as easily if the intel isn't accurate...

[LanternWaste]

34. Von Clausewitz wrote that the purpose of war

Von Clausewitz wrote that the purpose of war is to deny the enemy their own ability to wage war.

[Enrique]

37. the targets is the issue

we are targeting people that we don't even know who they are. They are called "signature strikes".

Regarding "why", don't ask me, ask Obama.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. "Why" is the question.

Assuming Obama is not acting recklessly or maliciously then what?

[Enrique]

41. how about "illegal"?

people are seriously questioning whether it is legal. One person on TV recently called it murder, you might or might not have heard this, it was strangely not reported very widely. PersonallyI find it astounding how few people are questioning the legality of the strikes, the Obama administration has barely been asked to justify it and when they do their justifications are ridiculous. Holder's "due process doesn't mean judicial due process" should be considered a major gaffe but hardly anyone said anything about it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. I think there's plenty of room for apprehension about targeting US citizens

But as my OP alludes to -- civilian casualties are part and parcel of war. That's not to make light of civilian casualties as much as it underscores the horrors of war but if anything that might lead to civilian deaths is deemed illegal then FDR could never have fought WW2, Gen Sherman never would have broken the back of the Southern slaveholders, etc.

Was it illegal to kill tens of thousands of civilians to try and knock a ball bearing factory out of order?

[Enrique]

45. many of the laws were a response to WWII

in most of the criticism I've read, they refer to statutes enacted well after WWII, as well as the Geneva Conventions which were also after WWII. Your arguments could have been made by opponents of the Geneva Conventions. However, anyone making those arguments, about FDR and Sherman, lost the debate, and there are many more restraints on war.

[jeff47]

47. The 4th Geneva Convention was after WWII

Most of what we think of as "the Geneva Conventions" was done before WWII.

[jeff47]

48. It's legal. Congress wrote an over-broad AUMF.

Congress can change that at any time.

[jeff47]

46. Are you claiming we knew who 1M Japanese were when we firebombed Tokyo? (nt)

[Enrique]

49. are you claiming we can drop nukes on Pakistan and Yemen?

like Truman did on Japan?

I'm hearing arguments I used to hear when Bush was president, but not usually at DU.

[jeff47]

50. Technically, we can. Nothing in the AUMF says we can't.

There's a treaty we signed that says we'll only use nukes to respond to nukes, but we already weakened that. We've stated that we'll use nukes in response to any nuclear, chemical or biological attack.

Point being that in WWII we blew the shit out of a lot of people, and everyone still calls it "a good war". Then they whine about a small number of people killed as collateral damage to a drone strike.

IMO we need to recognize innocent people die in war. "Good" wars as well as "not good" wars. If you want that to stop, Congress can yank the AUMF at any time.

[EX500rider]

52. Crap it used to be even worse then people think..to hell with the Germans,

...do you know how many of our allies we killed when we bombed the German sub pens in French ports through out the war?

It's thought that at least 15,000 French civilians were killed in just the D-day pre-invasion air bombardments and naval shelling alone.

[malthaussen]

55. And of course, we didn't make a dent in the sub pens.

Ooopsies!

-- Mal

[malthaussen]

53. Ball-bearings are strategic resources

And were concentrated on heavily during the bomber offensive. Moreover, the ball-bearing raids were conducted at great loss of Allied life and aircraft because they were such a vital resource.

So I think your equivalency fails there. But maybe you are really asking if strategic bombing wasn't a worse solution than precision bombing (although we called our raids "precision" bombing in WWII, they were anything but), which is still a false equivalency, because in WWII we didn't have the capability to use drones in the first place.

But frankly, I'm not really sure what your argument is. That collateral damage from drones is better than collateral damage from strategic bombing because only a dozen or a score of innocents are killed per strike, rather than thousands? Is that your calculus of death? Or is your calculus that it's okay if a few innocents are killed as long as we get the bad guy, but it is a terrible tragedy if we miss him? Even when the "bad guy" is only guilty of (at most) inciting violence against us, or saying bad things about us.

-- Mal