You can stop laughing now.
Re: You can stop laughing now.
by spacemonkey » Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:01 pm
Push button killing is just easier. And the word collateral damage already exists,so whats the problem? Its ok if we do it to ourselves. Seriously, I asked the big giant head.
The hardest part of doing nothing is knowing when your done.
- spacemonkey
- Governor
- Posts: 5718
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:54 am
- Location: cyberspace
- Gender:
- Has thanked: 73 times
- Been thanked: 296 times
Re: You can stop laughing now.
by fstarcstar » Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:31 am
I've only read parts of this thread, but I'm going to lay down my 2 cents.
Do I honestly believe Holder and Obama are going to use a drone to kill Americans inside the United States? Nope, not at all. Holders statement was of a theoretical nature and I use that type of language when I talk, so I understand where he is coming from. Technically, if a president wanted to he could physically do it, but thats certainly in a reality unlike any American has ever seen. Its been a many years since the military has been used in our borders and its very unlikely to see a drone used to kill anyone at this time.
Right now, police departments and the federal government are using drones all across the US. I remember reading an article that has them for various uses such as trying to find marijuana or even search for the recent cop from california.
Now, fast forward 20 years from now. This is where I think the idea of drones will be used more frequently. I honestly think the technology will advance forward and we will be able to see a different kind of drone. Imagine the arial advantage police deparments can have in the coming age. If theres a domestic disturbance, they can probably have a drone in the air that can have an aerial view of the location, locate targets, vehicles etc. Imagine it will become the modern day helicopter we use today. Ok, so, technology advances, and police departments and neighborhoods become more inclined to vote for more security. Say there is alot of vandalism in certain locations, police deparments can utilize drones to use night vision and infared technology to find anyone after curfew, locate potential robberies etc. These all actually sound good and useful to alot of people, police departments, FBI, and everyone else would love it. It actually does seem useful.
BUT
That is where I think it will change things for the future. I choke this up to the possibility of IF. The reason why I think it will change is because one day there will be a drone monitoring an area that has clear line of sight of a criminal doing something illegal. It can have a clear shot, it has visual confirmation, but because it it unharmed, it isn't able to do anything outside of watch. One day, I suspect that people will be able to argue that a drone can act quicker than conventional police will. It will start when someone was killed by a criminal that a drone was monitoring, particularly this incident will probably involve a child or someone the media can enjoy using as a ploy to increase drone activity. Take a look at current events right now. IF, we have banned assault rifles, those 25 children wouldn't of been murdered. Solution? Ban them, take the IF card. IF the guy in colorado didn't have access he wouldn't of killed those in the theatres. IF we cut social programs, people will starve and die so we must create them. IF we don't keep spending more on defense we will be vulnerable. ETC ETC. I think once the technology grows in both drones and in defense, we can probably use more precise missiles that won't have the current devistating effect that current ones do. The American people would never support a large missile strike, but they probably would support much smaller tactics particularly if drones are more manuverble and agile.
I think whether we like it or not, drones are going to become more popular in the US, and its only a matter of time before they are potentially armed especially if the technology expands and we are able to use them more precisely with less collateral damage, and it only takes but a few major incidents to undermine our entire judicial system for the sake of security or public opinion. The day that little timmy gets killed by a man that could of been taken out by a drone prior to police arriving will be day 1.
Thats my belief at least and its not all I want to say I just narrowed it down, take it as you will.
Do I honestly believe Holder and Obama are going to use a drone to kill Americans inside the United States? Nope, not at all. Holders statement was of a theoretical nature and I use that type of language when I talk, so I understand where he is coming from. Technically, if a president wanted to he could physically do it, but thats certainly in a reality unlike any American has ever seen. Its been a many years since the military has been used in our borders and its very unlikely to see a drone used to kill anyone at this time.
Right now, police departments and the federal government are using drones all across the US. I remember reading an article that has them for various uses such as trying to find marijuana or even search for the recent cop from california.
Now, fast forward 20 years from now. This is where I think the idea of drones will be used more frequently. I honestly think the technology will advance forward and we will be able to see a different kind of drone. Imagine the arial advantage police deparments can have in the coming age. If theres a domestic disturbance, they can probably have a drone in the air that can have an aerial view of the location, locate targets, vehicles etc. Imagine it will become the modern day helicopter we use today. Ok, so, technology advances, and police departments and neighborhoods become more inclined to vote for more security. Say there is alot of vandalism in certain locations, police deparments can utilize drones to use night vision and infared technology to find anyone after curfew, locate potential robberies etc. These all actually sound good and useful to alot of people, police departments, FBI, and everyone else would love it. It actually does seem useful.
BUT
That is where I think it will change things for the future. I choke this up to the possibility of IF. The reason why I think it will change is because one day there will be a drone monitoring an area that has clear line of sight of a criminal doing something illegal. It can have a clear shot, it has visual confirmation, but because it it unharmed, it isn't able to do anything outside of watch. One day, I suspect that people will be able to argue that a drone can act quicker than conventional police will. It will start when someone was killed by a criminal that a drone was monitoring, particularly this incident will probably involve a child or someone the media can enjoy using as a ploy to increase drone activity. Take a look at current events right now. IF, we have banned assault rifles, those 25 children wouldn't of been murdered. Solution? Ban them, take the IF card. IF the guy in colorado didn't have access he wouldn't of killed those in the theatres. IF we cut social programs, people will starve and die so we must create them. IF we don't keep spending more on defense we will be vulnerable. ETC ETC. I think once the technology grows in both drones and in defense, we can probably use more precise missiles that won't have the current devistating effect that current ones do. The American people would never support a large missile strike, but they probably would support much smaller tactics particularly if drones are more manuverble and agile.
I think whether we like it or not, drones are going to become more popular in the US, and its only a matter of time before they are potentially armed especially if the technology expands and we are able to use them more precisely with less collateral damage, and it only takes but a few major incidents to undermine our entire judicial system for the sake of security or public opinion. The day that little timmy gets killed by a man that could of been taken out by a drone prior to police arriving will be day 1.
Thats my belief at least and its not all I want to say I just narrowed it down, take it as you will.
- These users thanked the author fstarcstar for the post:
- eynon81
-
fstarcstar - Governor
- Posts: 2616
- Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:47 pm
- Gender:
- Has thanked: 130 times
- Been thanked: 155 times
Re: You can stop laughing now.
by G5000 » Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:18 am
.
We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. - Ronald Reagan
We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. - Ronald Reagan
-
G5000 - Mayor
- Posts: 261
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:14 pm
- Gender:
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 46 times
Re: You can stop laughing now.
by G5000 » Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:24 am
.
We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. - Ronald Reagan
We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. - Ronald Reagan
-
G5000 - Mayor
- Posts: 261
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:14 pm
- Gender:
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 46 times
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 109 guests