ViperPilot

Of course...but we don't have an inferior military. Uhhh, I don't think 14 resolutions that Saddam waved the middle finger to and over 10 years of such can really count as an accomplishment for the UN. The guy finally moved his weapons out/hid them when he realized that it might be getting close to the time where the US stops putting up with his shit and goes in. Us standing w/ the UN is one of the best things to happen to Saddam. We're not OK with it...we're trying to dismantle as many nuclear arms as possible. It's a terrible reality that exists b/c of a terrible invention. If the human race can learn that lesson, then they'll realize that 100% robotic militaries will be just as a terrible invention as the atomic bomb. I think people will realize this, at lesat for long enough that an 100% robotic army will be far into the future (at least out of my career). They're just as terrible of an idea/invention as nuclear weapons. Hopefully people see that...if not, then your theory may be correct in a time to come...but not anytime soon. Still comes down to the fact that humans can do a better job, and most of us would rather die then be replaced by some bullshit machine. That's human nature, and that's how all of us in the business will continue to think...including the brass who'll stop this shit from getting out of control. I know that'll happen b/c it's happening today.

Do you really have to ask that question?

We're not all war-hungry heathens...as much as movies and such might depict us. That line of thinking will go beyond moral boundary that I feel the American people would not let happen. And as popular as a war president is, he's not going to be popular with starting 10 wars...the people won't let it happen, at least IMO. Yes, the same UN who gave Saddam 14 resolutions and kept saying, "no guys, he'll change, seriously." Yeah, listening to them works out well, doesn't it? Possibly, sorry to accuse you of such. Again, that's probably going too far in the sense that, while we hate the UN, Americans won't allow something of this immoral magnitude to occur. It would be political suicide to attempt a multi-war, fully automated military. The point I was making is, as mentioned above, that the US would not cross that moral boundary because of the American public's disdain for an automated military. It would be political suicide. Thus, the US would not get to this point and would stop any other state who tried to do so. Plus, for the past couple decades we've been drastically reducing nukes. The US is not a crazy country who wants to nuke states or use automated militaries against states to have a "quicker" outcome. Immoral in the majority of the world's populations' eyes. As said above, we do not want to nuke people, we are reducing are nuclear capacity to nil compared to what it was during the cold war, and we will do absolutely anything to not have to use nukes. Bush is not standing here saying nukes are moral and we have no problem using them. Sure he'll use them if all hell broke loose (but if it got that point, we're all fucked anyways), but he'll do whatever he can to NOT use them. Same will apply to sending 100% robotic forces into combat. Yeah, I know all about the tech advances. The AF asked for a JSF back in 1985. The Raptor is probably a piece compared to what some geek in a lab devised yesterday. But, w/ the points you mentioned above, and you have to add the actual willingness of the people to allow such a military to exist...we're looking at a long time from now.

You cannot compare our invasion of Iraq to an eccentric government wildly using robotic forces to destroy the world (which is a possibility with drone militaries). The point is, if the US was 100% robotic military, then conceivably we could be fighting 15 wars at the same time. It'd be pretty easing considering we just have millions of UAVs/robots to throw into a mess...no big deal. You can't do that stuff with the human military we have, so you can't compare Iraq to what could possibly happen with a 100% robotic military. Yeah, a few guys like Chirac and Schroeder really make me want to listen. If you think Bush is bad and corrupt for his "business ties," then you should really hate those guys. To be honest, I don't want our foreign policy run by the French, German, Itallians, etc. So just b/c poor old France and the Krauts (my wife's German, so I can say that) don't like us fucking up their deal, doesn't mean we should just lay down and roll over. You're assuming that the US is a party in the 100% UAV/robotic military. I don't think we would every be players in that arena due to the levels of morality it breaks. So if a country tried to do this, then as you mentioned, the US would probably be the ones speerheading the international outcry against it. And that's the reason people won't allow it. Easier war will lead to immoral battle. Although Congress is all about cutting costs, they're not going to develop a 100% UAV military based on immorality (yes I know it's weird for Congress to know anything about that) and in some sense, impractical to a degree...b/c remember, it's always easier to have a person there then to have a person sort of there through a camera lens. Plus, talk to me in several decades when something like this is even feasible.

Not going to happen. Why? Not b/c tech won't be there, but b/c international concern and disagreement will be there. Think about it...if a country has an entire military made of drones, then that country is MUCH MORE willing to go to war b/c just like people have been saying in this thread, "what does it matter if we lose them? They're not people." Thus, members of the international community won't allow it for fear that a state will become greedy and start wars on the premise that they're not losing life anyways, so who gives two shits if we attack country X? That's why it won't happen. Drone militaries far surpass the morality of war...it won't happen (and since I'm a realist, I'll say this with 99% certainty).

Wow, I totally forgot about the LA riots...I lived in Southern CA when all that went down. That one's a good point. Hmmm...

Yeah that's true. Let the uavos fly their predators around looking for intel and maybe the once in a while "target of opportunity." But beyond that, nah. Well some missions will be more dangerous, but just b/c they are doesn't mean we say, "ah fuck it" and throw it out. No matter how dangerous, many missions just can't be completed well w/ a UAV. Plus, you're talking about losses such as those suffered in Vietnam...the only reason that happened was b/c we couldn't frickin bomb the SAM sites until after they shot a guy down...not to mention the tech was nothing back then compared to today (as far as accuracy, type of munitions, etc.). It'd take one hell of a magical occurance to bring about losses like that, or just one jackass in the WH who doesn't let us do our jobs. Hey if they don't want to fight and would rather sit in a trailer, fine. I'm just saying I sure as hell wouldn't want to do it. And yeah, they're active duty. I mean, good on them for doing the job, I'm just saying a lot of pilots would rather, well, do something else than sit in the trailer.

Well, I don't think a group of black people are about to hijack airplanes or go on a suicide bombing run through a mall. I just don't see it...it's not in our culture...unless they converted (I'll probably get shit for that one).

No offense, but it's not you who tells me if I should risk my life or not. It's my decision. If I ever came back in a box, I would be pissed if people used me as material to blame the govt, President, etc. I signed up, I know what I'm into. Losing people sucks, but those people willingly gave up their lives, they weren't forced to. Now, if we had a conscripted military, I could see your point. But since we decide to join, it's up to us, not you or anyone else. Therefore, it's our preferences that matter.

True, but what an American pilot can do with a viper, eagle, raptor, hawg, etc. is much more lethal than what someone can do with a UAV...at this point anyways. I realize the tech, but I don't honestly think UAVs will be able to match even close to the above for a very long time. Hence, to win the war, it's in our best interest to use the best assets...human pilots. I doubt it's as high as you would think. I don't know a single pilot who, because he doesn't want to risk injury or death, decides to fly from a trailer than from the cockpit. If I die, well it'll be for a reason and with honor...and I'd rather do that then sit in a trailer and never have really seen action. I think it's only a mentality that can be understood when you're in the military...no offense to you or anyone else that's not in, but there's just something about wanting to see action vs sitting at a desk w/ a joystick for 20 yrs. Maybe it's easier applied to different aspects of the military, but there's still the feeling.

How so? Well I know that, but those people can't make a split second decision like a pilot can that's actually there. They can probably do a good amount, but there's still no replacement for actually having a person there. Well I know, but coming from another perspective, it's a hell of a lot better to actually fly instead of "flying" from a trailer. War is not fun, people die...it's a terrible thing, don't get me wrong. But in a different way, it's more "fun" to actually be the one flying then just sitting somewhere in front of a computer. That's the point I was trying to make. I agree, war sucks.

Yeah, but how often do we get shot down? Not to mention I'd rather die than have to sit at Nellis in a trailer.

It's pretty much just a field now...heard something about buiilding an ampitheatre there. Here's a fun fact...the Republican party in Chicago (so like 5 people) pledged $10,000 to anyone who could get Daley indicted on federal charges. I hope this retarded move works...although it won't. But, it'd be really funny if it did; screw Daley.

Wow, that completely sucks for those women...and for the rest of DC. I'm just glad I pack. To all those guys out there like these, I just say, "try it asshole."

What he said...

They can do recon and some surgical strike, but hell if a machine can every fully replace a human being in total mission capability that a fighter can do. It's just not possible. Programming and technology is amazing today, but a computer can't do things that the human brain can. Why the hell would you want to get rid of the fun part? I know you're probably exagerating for effect, but just in case, 1 Predator costs approx $50 million. Last I checked, it costs roughly $6 million to fully train a pilot. So, where's the logic in this one? So all in all, UAVs are good for some small things, but overall I still hate them and still maintain that they will never fully replace the manned aircraft. Screw the predator.

Yeah, but I just don't think they're big enough to pose any kind of real threat to our stability.

IMO Daley should be tied to a pole at the front gate of Oshkosh every year. What you do when you walk past him is, well, up to you.

Yeah, because those people are a bunch of idiots and still think they're owed something for what their multi-generations-ago ancestors went through. What a cop out. They're just being irresponsible and ridiculous. Thank God a good amount of black people aren't like that...including the several I know. Kayne West is just another idiot trying to start a cockfight over his skin color. Total d-bag.

God I hate Predators...guess they're good for some things, but hell if they replace real pilots! Plus, it's just more fun when you can look back and see the flames! Oh sorry, apparently that was supposed to have been said in the stereotypical, uneducated hick voice.

Very true. The US did do what it said it would do. However, I was just saying that they should have just gotten Saddam then. Saddam and Bin Laden would have been long gone by now if Bush Sr. and Clinton had done the right thing.

A, missed one. I think a lot of the questions are relatively common sense if you at all pay attention to culture, even in the slightest.

Shit, try a weekend at the fiancee's parents. Well, her dad's cool, but that's where it ends...

Haha, I like how you think Bill...sometimes.

My mistake, you're correct. However, I think Clinton is equally to blame as Bush Sr. for the mess. Bush left the people, Clinton didn't do anything more when he came into office. They both fucked up the situation really bad. Seems to be the name of the game for every president.