Two Party Opera by Brian Carroll for November 11, 2020

We had Navy drones in Vietnam too. They were called DASH (Drone Anti Submarine Helicopter). They were outfitted with TV cameras and flew off destroyers to act as spotters for Naval gunfire. Not a great way to do it but it was better than risking a man in the air over the North.

The future of drones?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM

Here’s a question…what’s the difference between a drone that fires a missile and a 155 dropping a shell?

None. The victims are still dead and wounded.

Trump admin is blowing up civilians, the press doesn’t even bother to report it.

Hiroshima & Nagasaki

Ike came up with the term military-industrial complex because war profiteers had such an ugly implication.

I’m torn on drones. The technology exists, o of course it’s going to be used. More civilian casualties than ground troops, fewer civilian casualties than carpet bombing with incendiaries.

For me, I suppose the question is more “Is this a war we should be waging in the first place?” than “What weapons should we use while waging it?” The two aren’t unconnected, of course; the easier we make it to wage war with minimal risk (to our own forces), the more likely we are to intervene without sufficient provocation.

Once again, we had such an incredible opportunity in Afghanistan when we invaded.

Had we directed even a small percentage of the military efforts toward nation building — water purification plants, schools, infrastructure, etc. — rather than invading Iraq, that part of the world would be immensely better off.

And so would the rest of the world.

.

We must remember to give thanks to Bush, Cheney, Bolton, Scooter, and the whole gang. We should never forget their contribution.

I’m weirdly pro-drone, at least insofar as “It’s better than conventional bombing in about 50 ways”