Reaper scores insurgent kill in Afghanistan

[unhappycamper]

Reaper scores insurgent kill in Afghanistan
Staff report
Posted : Monday Oct 29, 2007 18:59:06 EDT

The Air Force’s use of remote-controlled aircraft passed another milestone Saturday with the first air strike flown by an MQ-9 Reaper, the service’s newest unmanned plane.

According to Central Air Forces, an MQ-9 fired a Hellfire missile at Afghanistan insurgents in the Deh Rawood region of the mountainous Oruzgan province. The strike was “successful,” CentAF said.

Based at Kandahar Air Field, Reapers have been flying over Afghanistan since Sept. 25. Like the smaller MQ-1 Predator, pilots and sensor operators in Nevada use satellite links to guide the planes on attack and reconnaissance sorties. A second set of deployed aviators control the planes’ take offs and landings.

The Reaper can carry up to 3,000 pounds of weapons while the MQ-1 is limited to 500 pounds of munitions.


Rest of article at: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/10/airforce_mq9_reaper_071029w/

[acmavm]

1. Takes real courage to kill people from miles away with missles on

remote controlled aircraft. You can't see who you're killing, they can't see who's ending their lives.

Modern war, how sanitary.

[HereSince1628]

3. It wasn't courageous to hide behind trees and ambush red coats

on the roads of Middlesex, either. At least according to those being ambushed. The same was said for the submarine and the ballistic missle.


The history of warfare seems replete with advances in technology that are designed to create assymetries in risk.

[acmavm]

4. Yeah, but this takes it all to a higher level. Sanitizes it. Makes it soooo

much easier. Removes the killer from his weapon.

[HereSince1628]

7. Maybe makes it more personal, I'm not sure it makes it easier.

Bomber pilots have been dropping bombs on "targets" from heights that make discernment of individual people pretty much impossible for over a century. Maybe a guy aiming with a telescopic image on a tv camera has more realization of what he's targeting.

I suspect anyone releasing lethal weapons from whatever distance realizes what's happening. I don't think one must be killing someone with a club or a knife to have a sense of responsibility for the act.

[NYVet]

8. Would you rather we do it at 10 paces on the town square?

If so, please forward your request to those monsters who chop the heads off of bound and gagged captives in front of a video camera and the Department of Defense as so we can setup the duels in a civilized manner and not offend your sensibilities.
/ :sarcasm:

[acmavm]

9. You know what, I'd rather we weren't doing it at all. Especially

to people who didn't do a fucking thing to us in the first damn place (the civilians in the area). Takes a lot of guts to bomb an innocent and defenseless populace, doesn't it???? We ain't just killing the bad guys you know.

edit: to clarify the fact that not only the 'bad guys' are dying in that country.

[NYVet]

10. And if the bad guys didn't hide among the civilians

we wouldn't be bombing the civilians.

[HereSince1628]

11. If we KNOW the bad guys are hiding among civilians

we should choose a weapon system or tactic that isn't gonna kill civilians.

Killing civilians is bad in so many ways. We ought to be looking for ways to avoid another burning of Dresden.

Counter-terrorist operations lend themselves to assassination/murder more than battlefields. Terrorists are better fought with a scalpel than a sword, better fought with a needle than a spear.

In the collateral damage we create tomorrow's terrorists. We need to minimize the collateral damage.

[NYVet]

13. I agree with you. We do need to minimize the collateral damage.

and the military does try to minimize the collateral damage as much as possible.

However, scalpels can't be used all the time, and sometimes there is collateral damage. Sometimes the terrprists deliberately hide behind women, children, and old men.

To allow them to run and hide, then sneak out to shoot at us and then hide again is a sure recipe for defeat. Whenever possible, we do send in troops to take them out, sometimes the only feasible way to strike them is with a bomb.

[HereSince1628]

14. I don't accept that. Killing innocents and calling them collateral damage is a cheap

excuse for not having the assets to do the job right.

We can never win by killing 3 terrorists and making 17 people absolutely blood enemies.

[NYVet]

15. So you would support have a military of 9-10 million men?

As so that when we go after terrorists, we can have the assets on the ground and not have to drop a bomb from 15,000 feet?

[HereSince1628]

16. I don't see how increasing numbers of conventional forces per se

eliminates collateral damage.

Good opportunity eliminates collateral damage, and opportunity isn't only chance discoveries via passive intelligence. Opportunity can and must be created at a quite personal level. That takes having dedicated friends in very tight places.

Potentially, really good opportunity can be exploited with any number of weapons even bombs falling from the sky.

[acmavm]

12. What the fuck ever. I have NEVER swallowed that excuse and I

never friggin' will.

[ngant17]

2. I wonder what really happened

maybe it blew up a wedding party and killed only innocent bystanders.

Wouldn't trust Pentagon psy-ops to tell me the real news anyway.

[NavyDavy]

5. he wasn't an insurgent....he was a Taliban....I thought insurgents

came from outside the country.....Taliban are Afghans....(no not the rugs)am i wrong?

[Sweet Pea]

6. And they are crowing about it

over on Defense Tech