Military Drones Contract Keylogger Virus

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Military Drones Contract Keylogger Virus

image

These days malware is everywhere. It's even in our flying war machines.

According to a recent report on Wired's Danger Room blog, the US military's airborne Predator and Reaper drones have been infected with a virus. Military techs say the virus intercepts and documents every keystroke sent to the drones by their ground-based pilots, though so far it seems that this information is not actually being transmitted to anyone.

Unfortunately, the military seems unable to remove the virus. "We keep wiping it off, and it keeps coming back," an unnamed source told Wired. "We think it's benign. But we just don't know."

A later Reuters report claims that despite the infection, the drones have continued in active service.

Officially, the military remains coy on the issue. "We generally do not discuss specific vulnerabilities, threats, or responses to our computer networks, since that helps people looking to exploit or attack our systems to refine their approach," said Air Combat Command spokesman Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis. "We invest a lot in protecting and monitoring our systems to counter threats and ensure security, which includes a comprehensive response to viruses, worms, and other malware we discover."

Obviously this is bad news for the drone program, and the military's refusal to discuss the subject should come as no surprise, both given its standard operating procedure on matters of this nature and the inherent value the program has to both the military and the CIA. Over the past few years, a number of targets have been eliminated via drone strikes, most recently Muslim cleric and alleged Al Qaeda member Anwar al-Awlaki.

Even assuming this keylogger is as benign as the military hopes -- and that's still somewhat suspect -- it does little to instill faith in the technology the government is using to fight our wars.

Then again, it would be silly to think that any computer-based element of such a high-profile effort would be impervious to malware. If the past few decades have proven anything, it's that talented hackers and virus writers can and will circumvent even the most well-crafted security measures.

That said, the only real question is when we'll see these drones struck by a truly malicious threat. Forget mass sentience, the real sci-fi horror story comes from the idea of a bored scriptkid taking control of a flying machine armed with heat-seeking missiles and a radar signature that borders on invisibility.

Source: LA Times

Permalink

And that's why you don't let your flying war machines have WiFi, they'll search around for comp on comp pron and end up with their keys logged.

Earnest Cavalli:
Forget mass sentience, the real sci-fi horror story comes from the idea of a bored scriptkid taking control of a flying machine armed with heat-seeking missiles and a radar signature that borders on invisibility.

Don't even put the idea in their heads. The last thing we need is some idiot playing with something that could really hurt someone.

Ok who installed the the free toolbars on the military drone put your hand up I know it was one of you

skynets taking over.

Yay for skynet! Awww... Too soon?

I'm betting they'll blame this "virus" for all the civilians they've bombed with those things. 'Collateral damage? - Wasn't us! It was the Virus!'

EDIT: Friggin' Ninja'd on the skynet thing. Go figure.

Those techies just can't resist the lure of hundreds of free cursors and wallpapers. Nice to see that the people in charge of multi-million dollar killing machines are keeping them secure.

Sarcasm self-test complete.

This is actually really creepy, cause you know it was probably some guy Keylogging somehing stupid, only to realize he actually installed a virus...

ZeZZZZevy:

Earnest Cavalli:
Forget mass sentience, the real sci-fi horror story comes from the idea of a bored scriptkid taking control of a flying machine armed with heat-seeking missiles and a radar signature that borders on invisibility.

Don't even put the idea in their heads. The last thing we need is some idiot playing with something that could really hurt someone.

I agree... God knows the last thing we need is someone reading this and realizing a possibility..

... The fuck? /thread

We are all doomed. We've been doomed since, Well, japan

I am not about to expect the military to think of everything to protect their machines. That is what learning from mistakes and oversights is all about.

Celtic_Kerr:
This is actually really creepy, cause you know it was probably some guy Keylogging somehing stupid, only to realize he actually installed a virus...

Earnest Cavalli:
Forget mass sentience, the real sci-fi horror story comes from the idea of a bored scriptkid taking control of a flying machine armed with heat-seeking missiles and a radar signature that borders on invisibility.

ZeZZZZevy:
Don't even put the idea in their heads. The last thing we need is some idiot playing with something that could really hurt someone.

Celtic_Kerr:
I agree... God knows the last thing we need is someone reading this and realizing a possibility..

Don't worry, guys, someone already realized this idea before it was suggested. No guilt on your shoulders!

Considering that the use of unmanned Military Vehichles is actually a war crime, we may as well just sit back and watch these drones get slowly destroyed by viruses. I, for one, welcome the idea of every bloody unmanned vehicle getting taken down by a lowly virus. It'd be funny, and it'd be karmic retribution.

You know there is some hacker out there getting the keylog reports from this drone and saying "Damn this guy plays a lot of flight simulators"

ZeZZZZevy:

Earnest Cavalli:
Forget mass sentience, the real sci-fi horror story comes from the idea of a bored scriptkid taking control of a flying machine armed with heat-seeking missiles and a radar signature that borders on invisibility.

Don't even put the idea in their heads. The last thing we need is some idiot playing with something that could really hurt someone.

What if it's just a jaded nerd who wants to get revenge on his one and only girlfriend who just left him, breaking his fragile heart into pieces and sending him spiraling into depression.... 'cos if that happened, I could totally see a UAV covert strike as justified.

Not that I'm speaking from personal experience or anything. *Starts whistling casually*

Earnest Cavalli:
Predator and Reaper drone...

...the drone program...
...drone strikes...

...drones struck...

They are not drones.

Have you any idea what a drone is? A drone is a bee that cannot create honey nor even has a sting, they are useless lumps of matter that do very simple jobs. To apply it to an aircraft imbues it with the same qualities totally inappropriate.

The ONLY time it is appropriate to label an aircraft a "drone" is when it performs a SIMPLE autonomous task like the first pilot-less planes in WWII that were launched for use as mere target practice. They were to fly in a straight line and get shot. That's it.

It betrays illiteracy to apply the term "drone" to these extraordinarily sophisticated, capable and elite aircraft that are pilot-less. They have sting (missiles), they bring in the honey (intelligence) and are not massed to menial task but take on the most important tasks (decapitating Al Qaeda)

InterAirplay:
Considering that the use of unmanned Military Vehichles is actually a war crime, we may as well just sit back and watch these drones get slowly destroyed by viruses. I, for one, welcome the idea of every bloody unmanned vehicle getting taken down by a lowly virus. It'd be funny, and it'd be karmic retribution.

According to what internationally ratified law is an Unmanned Aircraft illegal for use in war or anywhere else?

if you mean under the Hague Convention well that bans the deployment of bombs from ALL AIRCRAFT! And that agreement has been de-facto void since the 1910's.

And getting beyond any legal technicalities, what is so barbaric about using a remotely operated aircraft to deliver munitions with pinpoint accuracy, compared to planting roadside bombs? Or simply shooting at an enemy combatant with a rifle?

I understand why using poison gas is a war-crime, as it is indiscriminately applied over a wide area where it does not directly target enemy combatants and can lead to escalation where the danger of mass use against civilians is high.

But considering the agreed intentions of war, what is the problem with remotely piloted aircraft for attack?

InterAirplay:
Considering that the use of unmanned Military Vehichles is actually a war crime

Where are you seeing that? The only information I could find was pointing to there being some debates surrounding the use of non-military person as pilots and a drones legal right to self defense responses, but it's only when the subject of unmanned vehicles carrying out autonomous combat actions does question of their implications in international laws of war enter the situation. Every nation is specifically "keeping a man in the loop" to avoid that.

Hopefully this means that we won't totally turn the air force into the drone force. It would be kind of boring to watch a war movie and just have people sitting at computer screens. Don't get me wrong I love drones I just don't want them totally eliminating fighter pilots and such.

Edit: also I bet you $100 that China is behind this.

Treblaine:

InterAirplay:
Considering that the use of unmanned Military Vehichles is actually a war crime, we may as well just sit back and watch these drones get slowly destroyed by viruses. I, for one, welcome the idea of every bloody unmanned vehicle getting taken down by a lowly virus. It'd be funny, and it'd be karmic retribution.

According to what internationally ratified law is an Unmanned Aircraft illegal for use in war or anywhere else?

if you mean under the Hague Convention well that bans the deployment of bombs from ALL AIRCRAFT! And that agreement has been de-facto void since the 1910's.

And getting beyond any legal technicalities, what is so barbaric about using a remotely operated aircraft to deliver munitions with pinpoint accuracy, compared to planting roadside bombs? Or simply shooting at an enemy combatant with a rifle?

I understand why using poison gas is a war-crime, as it is indiscriminately applied over a wide area where it does not directly target enemy combatants and can lead to escalation where the danger of mass use against civilians is high.

But considering the agreed intentions of war, what is the problem with remotely piloted aircraft for attack?

Because using remotely piloted aircaft for an attack against living targets removes the factor of possible loss of life from one side of the conflict. Essentially, this means that one side of the conflict no longer has to worry about potential deaths while killing the enemy, when one of these things can be flown over an immense distance via remote operator to take out the enemy.

This is totally immoral. Putting one side at risk while keeping the other out of combat entirely using advanced tech that only one side has access to removes most of the need for due consideration of whether or not a battle, or even a war, should be started because suddenly the possibility of death is no longer there. I don't care how amoral the enemy is, fighting them without even putting a human in the battlefield is just plain wrong.

InterAirplay:

Treblaine:

InterAirplay:
Considering that the use of unmanned Military Vehichles is actually a war crime, we may as well just sit back and watch these drones get slowly destroyed by viruses. I, for one, welcome the idea of every bloody unmanned vehicle getting taken down by a lowly virus. It'd be funny, and it'd be karmic retribution.

According to what internationally ratified law is an Unmanned Aircraft illegal for use in war or anywhere else?

if you mean under the Hague Convention well that bans the deployment of bombs from ALL AIRCRAFT! And that agreement has been de-facto void since the 1910's.

And getting beyond any legal technicalities, what is so barbaric about using a remotely operated aircraft to deliver munitions with pinpoint accuracy, compared to planting roadside bombs? Or simply shooting at an enemy combatant with a rifle?

I understand why using poison gas is a war-crime, as it is indiscriminately applied over a wide area where it does not directly target enemy combatants and can lead to escalation where the danger of mass use against civilians is high.

But considering the agreed intentions of war, what is the problem with remotely piloted aircraft for attack?

Because using remotely piloted aircaft for an attack against living targets removes the factor of possible loss of life from one side of the conflict. Essentially, this means that one side of the conflict no longer has to worry about potential deaths while killing the enemy, when one of these things can be flown over an immense distance via remote operator to take out the enemy.

This is totally immoral. Putting one side at risk while keeping the other out of combat entirely using advanced tech that only one side has access to removes most of the need for due consideration of whether or not a battle, or even a war, should be started because suddenly the possibility of death is no longer there. I don't care how amoral the enemy is, fighting them without even putting a human in the battlefield is just plain wrong.

So the use of say tanks is immoral in war if the enemy has no means to blow them up? Seriously? Technology is a fact of war, it's why in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq they used the gorilla warfare tactics to counter the superior technology of the US military. Saying we should fight on a level playing field with whoever we're fighting is just silly, besides what about the case where one side has much much less risk? Is that still immoral?

John the Gamer:
Yay for skynet! Awww... Too soon?

I'm betting they'll blame this "virus" for all the civilians they've bombed with those things. 'Collateral damage? - Wasn't us! It was the Virus!'

EDIT: Friggin' Ninja'd on the skynet thing. Go figure.

It's a keylogger. It can't be used to control the drones it just means that whoever put it in will be able to tell what the drones are being used for.

cookyy2k:

InterAirplay:

Treblaine:

According to what internationally ratified law is an Unmanned Aircraft illegal for use in war or anywhere else?

if you mean under the Hague Convention well that bans the deployment of bombs from ALL AIRCRAFT! And that agreement has been de-facto void since the 1910's.

And getting beyond any legal technicalities, what is so barbaric about using a remotely operated aircraft to deliver munitions with pinpoint accuracy, compared to planting roadside bombs? Or simply shooting at an enemy combatant with a rifle?

I understand why using poison gas is a war-crime, as it is indiscriminately applied over a wide area where it does not directly target enemy combatants and can lead to escalation where the danger of mass use against civilians is high.

But considering the agreed intentions of war, what is the problem with remotely piloted aircraft for attack?

Because using remotely piloted aircaft for an attack against living targets removes the factor of possible loss of life from one side of the conflict. Essentially, this means that one side of the conflict no longer has to worry about potential deaths while killing the enemy, when one of these things can be flown over an immense distance via remote operator to take out the enemy.

This is totally immoral. Putting one side at risk while keeping the other out of combat entirely using advanced tech that only one side has access to removes most of the need for due consideration of whether or not a battle, or even a war, should be started because suddenly the possibility of death is no longer there. I don't care how amoral the enemy is, fighting them without even putting a human in the battlefield is just plain wrong.

So the use of say tanks is immoral in war if the enemy has no means to blow them up? Seriously? Technology is a fact of war, it's why in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq they used the gorilla warfare tactics to counter the superior technology of the US military. Saying we should fight on a level playing field with whoever we're fighting is just silly, besides what about the case where one side has much much less risk? Is that still immoral?

War is already just about tolerated as an occasionally necessary evil, I honestly think there should be as many sanctions in place as possible to restrict the use of excessive force when fighting against an enemy. Using this tech to protect settlements and civillians, I can get behind. As for the application of this tech in an offensive capacity, that's a moral grey area for me, but I do believe that yes, we should be using our technological advantage for capture/protection, and not for killing. If we're facing a foe on equal footing, THEN we should be going all out, simply because there's a possibility (nay, al iklehood) that the enemy is doing the same.

I don't understand how that is wrong. All that is doing is roughly dividing the deaths by half. Seeing as USA has the drones, why should you care? Unless you think that is is better for USA soldiers to put their lives at risk than be immoral, then drones are going in the right directions. The less human casualties the better.

ihax4snax:
I don't understand how that is wrong. All that is doing is roughly dividing the deaths by half. Seeing as USA has the drones, why should you care? Unless you think that is is better for USA soldiers to put their lives at risk than be immoral, then drones are going in the right directions. The less human casualties the better.

Think he probably still has the romantic image of war where you charge in on your horse have a bit of sword play then all go home for tea once the winner has been decided. But since the tech exists to have drones, jets and cruise missiles they do exist.

Epicspoon:

It's a keylogger. It can't be used to control the drones it just means that whoever put it in will be able to tell what the drones are being used for.

It's pretty friggin obvious what it's being used for!
:P

Anyway, i'm going ot be sensible here, and say that THE ROBOTS ARE TAKING OVER, OH GOD WE'RE DOOMED, RUN!!!

So yeah, that's just my take on things ;P

Earnest Cavalli:

That said, the only real question is when we'll see these drones struck by a truly malicious threat. Forget mass sentience, the real sci-fi horror story comes from the idea of a bored scriptkid taking control of a flying machine armed with heat-seeking missiles and a radar signature that borders on invisibility.

Allright. Who let 1983's matthew broderick near a internet conection and a hot girl again?

InterAirplay:

Treblaine:

InterAirplay:
Considering that the use of unmanned Military Vehichles is actually a war crime, we may as well just sit back and watch these drones get slowly destroyed by viruses. I, for one, welcome the idea of every bloody unmanned vehicle getting taken down by a lowly virus. It'd be funny, and it'd be karmic retribution.

According to what internationally ratified law is an Unmanned Aircraft illegal for use in war or anywhere else?

if you mean under the Hague Convention well that bans the deployment of bombs from ALL AIRCRAFT! And that agreement has been de-facto void since the 1910's.

And getting beyond any legal technicalities, what is so barbaric about using a remotely operated aircraft to deliver munitions with pinpoint accuracy, compared to planting roadside bombs? Or simply shooting at an enemy combatant with a rifle?

I understand why using poison gas is a war-crime, as it is indiscriminately applied over a wide area where it does not directly target enemy combatants and can lead to escalation where the danger of mass use against civilians is high.

But considering the agreed intentions of war, what is the problem with remotely piloted aircraft for attack?

Because using remotely piloted aircaft for an attack against living targets removes the factor of possible loss of life from one side of the conflict. Essentially, this means that one side of the conflict no longer has to worry about potential deaths while killing the enemy, when one of these things can be flown over an immense distance via remote operator to take out the enemy.

This is totally immoral. Putting one side at risk while keeping the other out of combat entirely using advanced tech that only one side has access to removes most of the need for due consideration of whether or not a battle, or even a war, should be started because suddenly the possibility of death is no longer there. I don't care how amoral the enemy is, fighting them without even putting a human in the battlefield is just plain wrong.

When the hell did any of the rules of war necessitate that you HAVE to put yourself in harms way in order to deal a blow to the enemy?

Snipers, Artillery, roadside bombs, tanks, machine guns with interlocking fields of fire, every military strategy is about dealing the maximum damage to the enemy with the minimum risk to yourself.

Are you suggesting that if there was some way that all of our soldiers could be made 100% bullet and Bomb proof you would oppose that?

You would oppose a method that would prevent any more of your country's soldiers returning home in a coffin? Would you oppose it SIMPLY because our soldiers MUST be in harms way in order to conduct the business of war? It may be a tactical necessity to put them in harms way to achieve an objective, but it is no moral necessity.

This is totally immoral.

No, this is totally unfair, but that's what war is. You think roadside bombs are fair? You think "banning" them is any kind of solution?

If you think "war" is everyone dressing in bright colours, lining up in front of each other in an orderly fashion and taking turns to shoot at each other, that is not the "most moral" of war. That is a careless waste of life. Arbritrarily putting your soldiers in harms way just to "make it fair" utterly betrays the purpose of war.

Do not mistake the unavoidably of soldiers dying in combat with their necessity that they MUST die as a matter of morality.

War is about winning!

The rules of war forbid things that do not serve victory but are merely vindictive. Like mistreating prisoners. It is actually in the army's benefit to offer to treat enemy prisoners with decency as if there is the threat of summary execution or torture then they will be likely to surrender, but will never surrender, will fight to the very end far beyond the point of defending their objectives if its the only way to avoid a terrible fate.

Just imagine, important mission going on. Drones performing recon over enemy territory. Generals and the President sit in front of the screen, when suddenly big green bold letters shine on "CHEAP PENIS DRUGS XXX".

double post

Mark my words, the Airforce is just gonna go over to Linux.

I SWEAR I WASN'T LOOKING AT PORN IN THE DRONES!!

<.<
¬.¬

Come on... you know you thought it too.

Treblaine:

InterAirplay:

Treblaine:

According to what internationally ratified law is an Unmanned Aircraft illegal for use in war or anywhere else?

if you mean under the Hague Convention well that bans the deployment of bombs from ALL AIRCRAFT! And that agreement has been de-facto void since the 1910's.

And getting beyond any legal technicalities, what is so barbaric about using a remotely operated aircraft to deliver munitions with pinpoint accuracy, compared to planting roadside bombs? Or simply shooting at an enemy combatant with a rifle?

I understand why using poison gas is a war-crime, as it is indiscriminately applied over a wide area where it does not directly target enemy combatants and can lead to escalation where the danger of mass use against civilians is high.

But considering the agreed intentions of war, what is the problem with remotely piloted aircraft for attack?

Because using remotely piloted aircaft for an attack against living targets removes the factor of possible loss of life from one side of the conflict. Essentially, this means that one side of the conflict no longer has to worry about potential deaths while killing the enemy, when one of these things can be flown over an immense distance via remote operator to take out the enemy.

This is totally immoral. Putting one side at risk while keeping the other out of combat entirely using advanced tech that only one side has access to removes most of the need for due consideration of whether or not a battle, or even a war, should be started because suddenly the possibility of death is no longer there. I don't care how amoral the enemy is, fighting them without even putting a human in the battlefield is just plain wrong.

When the hell did any of the rules of war necessitate that you HAVE to put yourself in harms way in order to deal a blow to the enemy?

Snipers, Artillery, roadside bombs, tanks, machine guns with interlocking fields of fire, every military strategy is about dealing the maximum damage to the enemy with the minimum risk to yourself.

Are you suggesting that if there was some way that all of our soldiers could be made 100% bullet and Bomb proof you would oppose that?

You would oppose a method that would prevent any more of your country's soldiers returning home in a coffin? Would you oppose it SIMPLY because our soldiers MUST be in harms way in order to conduct the business of war? It may be a tactical necessity to put them in harms way to achieve an objective, but it is no moral necessity.

This is totally immoral.

No, this is totally unfair, but that's what war is. You think roadside bombs are fair? You think "banning" them is any kind of solution?

If you think "war" is everyone dressing in bright colours, lining up in front of each other in an orderly fashion and taking turns to shoot at each other, that is not the "most moral" of war. That is a careless waste of life. Arbritrarily putting your soldiers in harms way just to "make it fair" utterly betrays the purpose of war.

Do not mistake the unavoidably of soldiers dying in combat with their necessity that they MUST die as a matter of morality.

War is about winning!

The rules of war forbid things that do not serve victory but are merely vindictive. Like mistreating prisoners. It is actually in the army's benefit to offer to treat enemy prisoners with decency as if there is the threat of summary execution or torture then they will be likely to surrender, but will never surrender, will fight to the very end far beyond the point of defending their objectives if its the only way to avoid a terrible fate.

For christ's sake, I wasn't talking about what I think war is actually like, I was just trying to explain my view on the morality of it all.

Also, can you explain why our own troops dying is more of a blow to the human race than one of the enemy dying? what entitles us to disregard the effect of the death of a misguided extremist, but to regard the death of one of our own as a far greater tragedy?

I find this rather terrifying. A lot of black hats are sociopaths who, if they knew they could get away with it, wouldnt be averse to killing people with their own rogue drones. The only difference between the amoral psychopath who trolls people online and the one that starts strangling hookers is the level of risk they are comfortable with. I would NOT want a drone in the hands of a hacker.

InterAirplay:

Treblaine:

InterAirplay:
Considering that the use of unmanned Military Vehichles is actually a war crime, we may as well just sit back and watch these drones get slowly destroyed by viruses. I, for one, welcome the idea of every bloody unmanned vehicle getting taken down by a lowly virus. It'd be funny, and it'd be karmic retribution.

According to what internationally ratified law is an Unmanned Aircraft illegal for use in war or anywhere else?

if you mean under the Hague Convention well that bans the deployment of bombs from ALL AIRCRAFT! And that agreement has been de-facto void since the 1910's.

And getting beyond any legal technicalities, what is so barbaric about using a remotely operated aircraft to deliver munitions with pinpoint accuracy, compared to planting roadside bombs? Or simply shooting at an enemy combatant with a rifle?

I understand why using poison gas is a war-crime, as it is indiscriminately applied over a wide area where it does not directly target enemy combatants and can lead to escalation where the danger of mass use against civilians is high.

But considering the agreed intentions of war, what is the problem with remotely piloted aircraft for attack?

Because using remotely piloted aircaft for an attack against living targets removes the factor of possible loss of life from one side of the conflict. Essentially, this means that one side of the conflict no longer has to worry about potential deaths while killing the enemy, when one of these things can be flown over an immense distance via remote operator to take out the enemy.

This is totally immoral. Putting one side at risk while keeping the other out of combat entirely using advanced tech that only one side has access to removes most of the need for due consideration of whether or not a battle, or even a war, should be started because suddenly the possibility of death is no longer there. I don't care how amoral the enemy is, fighting them without even putting a human in the battlefield is just plain wrong.

Frak that.

I believe a line from Sun Tzu is in order here:

Hence the skillful fighter puts himself into a position which makes defeat impossible, and does not miss the moment for defeating the enemy.

One of the basics of war; the best and most powerful military forces will reduce all possible harm that could be done to their forces while making sure never to let an opportunity to strike at their enemies go to waste.

If that means using a bunch of UAVs to rain silent death down upon unsuspecting targets from miles away, then so be it. Why risk your own neck when you can risk a replaceable drone instead?

InterAirplay:

War is already just about tolerated as an occasionally necessary evil, I honestly think there should be as many sanctions in place as possible to restrict the use of excessive force when fighting against an enemy.

Don't you realise you are playing directly into Republican/Conservative paranoia about these various arms agreements? These arms agreements have always on the surface stated that they exist to diminish the chance of unnecessary suffering, NOT as a means to hobble justified military action in some kind of pacifist conspiracy.

But that is PRECISELY what you are saying you want these laws of war should be there for! Be nothing but arbitrary restrictions on justified use of military force for no other cause than the assumption that all use of military force is wrong, even when facing an incredibly dangerous and amoral enemy.

Using this tech to protect settlements and civillians, I can get behind. As for the application of this tech in an offensive capacity, that's a moral grey area for me, but I do believe that yes, we should be using our technological advantage for capture/protection, and not for killing.

They are protecting civilians. These UAvs are decapitating organisations who are running operation to murder civilians by the thousands and continue to do so in every village they take there are reprisals against anyone who diverged from their primitivist ideology.

You cannot capture these individuals. Especially with a UAV when it may have to loiter for as much as 24 hours waiting for their target to expose itself for just a moment, then launch a supersonic missile. And even with armed interdiction on foot, you cannot take any chanced trying to capture them at gun-point. Literally within less than a second of seeing them you need to put a bullet through their brain and through the brain of every one near them, as that's the only way to counter the suicide bomb menace.

If we're facing a foe on equal footing, THEN we should be going all out, simply because there's a possibility (nay, a likelihoods) that the enemy is doing the same.

You can'e seriously believe that if we offer to fight the Taliban on "equal footing" that they will take up that offer? That they won't continue to fight as a smart enemy, only picking the fights they think they can win.

Don't you realise the contradiction of "equal footing" yet "all out". All out would be to use all the technology, and capability we have to defeat the Taliban.

"We keep wiping it off, and it keeps coming back,"
I read that as "We keep pressing the 'No' button when it pops up, and it keeps coming back".

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here