Do We In America Really Want Females Killing and Spying by Remote Control?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

It's the "Way of The Carrot", my brother.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by beezzer

 

I'm sure plenty of MALE wimps are running around with no business in the "cockpit" chair, not just a % of the females, IMO.

True Dat!! I know one,,cool guy actually but no business behind the stick. i think he would lock up in a dogfight personally. Not talking about you TJ if you read this.

If i were to say how I really felt about this post they would shut my reply down. Further, I think this post should have been shut down because of discriminatory content, it is insulting to a least half of all ATS membership. Of course I think this person is just using this post to get a reaction and possibly incite anger by the women who read it. I can cook AND pull a trigger AND have babiesAND hold down a job. What world does this person live in? I mean really?

It doesnt matter whos behind the joystick, this is the future of warfare and the bases that these drones are operated from will be or already targeted by ICBM's or at least the known ones are.
I dont even understand why we have the F22 or the F35, when they are already obsolete.
They can build 100,000 X47 variants and have the "pilots" in a secured bunker all over the world at half the price of current jets and pilots.

Doesn't really bother me in the slightest.

Its either necessary to kill people or it isn't. Its either defensible or it isn't on a case by case basis.

It doesn't make the slightest difference if you push a button from 200 miles a way or put a bullet in their head from 15ft. They are still dead. The chromosomal make up of the human pushing the button or trigger makes no difference either.

We've been conducting impersonal remote wholesale murder since we invented artillery. Then we got longer range with bombers. Then more accurate with guided weapons. This is just the next evolution.

One advantage to having women in the seat is that in my experience, they tend to make more moral decisions than men do.

Originally posted by dainoyfb
One advantage to having women in the seat is that in my experience, they tend to make more moral decisions than men do.

Hahaha, you must not have a daughter then? Trust me, girls can be pretty brutal

reply to post by Juggernog


I have three. Just my experience though.

Originally posted by dainoyfb
reply to post by Juggernog

 

I have three. Just my experience though.

Oh man, I am so sorry.

Btw, the order to fire is given by someone much higher than the "pilot" so it really doesnt matter who sits in the chair.

Originally posted by bwcawaterbear
If i were to say how I really felt about this post they would shut my reply down. Further, I think this post should have been shut down because of discriminatory content, it is insulting to a least half of all ATS membership. Of course I think this person is just using this post to get a reaction and possibly incite anger by the women who read it. I can cook AND pull a trigger AND have babiesAND hold down a job. What world does this person live in? I mean really?

You seem very angry. So much so that I might have difficulty communicating with you. But let me ask at least one question though - how do you reconcile sitting at a console and "triggering" for the purposes of killing (possibly innocent) people - including babies - with the fact of your having babies yourself. Do you not see a moral dilemma in that?

Why are you afraid to say what's really bothering you? Why are you so timid? You are allowed to express yourself here - aren't you?

Please read the OP's first post and you will see that all of your suppositions are off the mark.

AND - If you really believe I am being discriminatory then please follow the instruction (below) and we can let the Moderators decide if your complains are valid - Thank you

reply to post by RealSpoke


Apples and Oranges man.

Drones are no different than F16s and U2s in their respective roles. The difference is where the pilot actually is. I would rather have a drone in the sky than a pilot in the sky. If a drone crashes or gets shot down then it's only an equipment loss.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by RealSpoke

 

Apples and Oranges man.

Drone are no different than F16s and U2s in their respective roles. The difference is where the pilot actually is. I would rather have a drone in the sky than a pilot in the sky. If a drone crashes or gets shot down then it's only an equipment loss.

There's also the difference in psychology, though. If there is a pilot actually there, on the scene, he may "accidentally" miss a target if he sees unarmed people or children in the cross-hairs. However, if they are sitting down in an armchair, across the ocean, sipping on coffee and listening to the Top 40... they may just not be attached enough to that reality and simply follow all orders to the best of their abilities.

The more detached people become from their very real victims, the more innocent victims there will be.

reply to post by Cuervo


I'm sorry, do you know the SOP for drone pilots?

Come back and post that training and mission SOP when you find it. I'd like to see where it lists this kind of behavior as acceptable while on mission.

reply to post by Vitruvian

Think again! Since they will functioning as “killers from a desktop” the generals needn’t be concerned for the mangled corpses of women on the battlefield or of arriving at Dover Air Base in body bags - now do they?

Wrong. Women will soon be granted the opportunity to train at the infantry school at Fort Benning starting this year(hopefully, but we all know the brass is slow) as well as attend Ranger School, Sapper school, and even SF. Women are already performing combat roles with infantry units such as 68W combat medics, Sappers, Human Intelligence and other roles that take them into direct contact with the enemy.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Cuervo

 

I'm sorry, do you know the SOP for drone pilots?

Come back and post that training and mission SOP when you find it. I'd like to see where it lists this kind of behavior as acceptable while on mission.

I don't know what's acceptable and what is not in the SOP of any military role. How can we know when we see and read about atrocities every day committed by ours and our "enemy" military? We also hear and read about soldiers breaking orders in order to save a child. So, no... judging by real-world actions, it is very hard to discern exactly what the intentions of our SOP are.

What I do know is that SOP is not always followed.

Distancing yourself and your victim is never a good idea. This is why it's morally easier to shoot somebody in the back than it is to choke them to death. Distance. Separation.

If the training involved takes that into account, then great, but the side-effect of emotionally distancing the folks with the bombs from the folks under the bombs should never be ignored.

what?Yeah they can do that.They are about to be allowed into infantry and Ranger leadership schools,That way eventually they can be drafted like men. Hurray for equallity.

Bear with me while I try to explain why it is very necessary for women to be trained in battle.

Throughout recorded history, there has only every been an approximately 30 year period where no battles (have been recorded to) have been fought.

All war is about land and resources. If you don't have a standing army, you're at risk at being overrun by someone who doesn't have the same moral precepts that you may hold to.

Let's say that you forbid all your women and children from being trained to fight. Then along comes a war in which you lose and the winning team gets to come in and take your things. What does the winning team tend to do with the people back home? Wholesale slaughter. So you've basically condemned your women, children, elderly, and infirm to death right along with you.

I don't care how many drones you have, one day in the future, Rome is going to fall to superior forces. And we can only speculate who those may be,

reply to post by Cuervo



For infantry units it is SOP to protect yourself FIRST. And protect the civilian life around you second. Everything else is last on the list. There is also SOP based on UCMJ. The fact is, laws no matter where they are derived, will be broken by a select few innocent people will die in war either by accident or by deliberate criminal acts. It is sad and heartbreaking and I wish it didn't happen but sometimes when we have to fight the wrong people get hurt.

Pilots of any aircraft have a responsibility to ensure to the BEST of their ability(and that of the sensing equipment) to minimize collateral damage. This isn't always possible because not everything can be effectively seen from several thousand feet up. It's the reality of the situation. Whether you're a drone pilot or a pilot flying an AH-64 or an F16, what you do is contingent upon mission requirements, mission SOP, UCMJ and international law. Mistakes are made, crimes are committed, equipment fails. These things are part of being human in combat and that's just the fact of the matter.

reply to post by juniperberry


I agree with that statement wholeheartedly. Everyone should learn to fight. Hand to hand and with weapons. Military service should include women in all aspect where they are effective. Infantry being the last holdout in the US military. Civilizations who know how to fight tend to outlast the ones who don't.

This is humanity after all. Civil in many ways yet still woefully feral.

My thoughts on the OP



Only kidding.. Could not resist