31–40 of 137 posts
I'm kind of over the whole "Look, we killed someone far, far, far away for dubious reasons with NEW technology" articles. These folks halfway across the world aren't bothering, nor do they actually threaten my freedom in any way shape or form.
But luckily for the public in his utter unprofessionalism Trump was pretty honest about it: https://www.newsweek.com/syria-trump-stealing-oil-us-confirm...
I'm kind of over the whole "Look, we killed someone far, far, far away for dubious reasons with NEW technology" articles. These folks halfway across the world aren't bothering, nor do they actually threaten my freedom in any way shape or form.
They don't threaten your freedom, but they threaten the freedom of the people who live in the Middle East
How long until the US is subject to this kind of targeted assassination? It doesn't seem that this tech is so inaccessible to state actors with billions to invest. There are sufficient such enemies. Is the Secret Service really confident that it can protect its charges from this kind of attack? I think they'll find that a drone missile can also be a boomerang. EDIT: The objections to this scenario are taking it more…
A state actor with billions of dollars to invest would just use a regular missile. But not against another state actor with billions of dollars to invest into anti-air defense. The only reason why these are used in places like Syria or Yemen is because there's nobody there with the capacity to reliably shoot down drones and/or warplanes.
The closest is probably the Israeli Iron Dome, and that costs about $50M for a battery with 17km range. Great for a tiny country under constant attack, but hardly economical for good coverage of larger countries.
What are we gaining from doing this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see them drone striking and assassinating the Emirs and Saudi royalty who are responsible much of the "freedom-limiting" activity in the Middle East though.
Do you realize you're defending al-Qaeda?
I'm kind of over the whole "Look, we killed someone far, far, far away for dubious reasons with NEW technology" articles. These folks halfway across the world aren't bothering, nor do they actually threaten my freedom in any way shape or form.
Yeah, the headline seems to imply it’s some new ‘big bad’ where the article just slowly exposes that it’s a non-explosive missile. Killing fewer people by not combusting the surrounding area sounds like an improvement.
https://www.quotes.net/mquote/992742
"Paul Kersey: Nothing's too good for our friends!"
I'm kind of over the whole "Look, we killed someone far, far, far away for dubious reasons with NEW technology" articles. These folks halfway across the world aren't bothering, nor do they actually threaten my freedom in any way shape or form.
They don't threaten your freedom, but they threaten the freedom of the people who live in the Middle East
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, the headline seems to imply it’s some new ‘big bad’ where the article just slowly exposes that it’s a non-explosive missile. Killing fewer people by not combusting the surrounding area sounds like an improvement.
Doesn't that line of reasoning presuppose you need to be firing missiles into crowded areas? Rather than develop those missiles, what could be achieved by investing those millions into developing economies and relationships abroad?