Military Drones Contract Keylogger Virus

[Rainboq]

Seeing as it's a key logger, maybe its a journalist ._.

 

[Averant]

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?

War? Moral?

During war you murder other people repeatedly, day in, day out. There's nothing even remotely moral about it. Justified? Maybe. Moral? Hah, fuck no.

Now I'm going to read the rest of the argument, assuming it's not too long winded, because I was looking ahead and jeez, you people do walls of text. It's a good thing I like to read...

 

[Averant]

In case you missed it, I still support military action against them. And I'm not trying to be aloof. A terrorist attempts to kill a child, you shoot him. Don't get me wrong. I just don't think that the beliefs they fight for make them evil. The beliefs themselves? sure. but the man himself? would he still do this if he was brought up and educated well?

to re-iterate: by all means, they need to be stopped. But I don't think that their deaths should be made light of any more than our own side's losses. After all, their lives could have been dedicated to something good. That's the reason why i think that losses on both sides are equally ragic. But don't get me wrong, I DO support the war, regardless of the complex and questonable political motivations. Less Taliban = good thing. it's just a shame wen eed to do it with bullets.

Just because I believe that all death is equally tragic does not mean I want to elevate myself above this conflict. I could never take part in it, but I don't act as though that puts me above it. Someone has to do it. I'm not trying to put both sides in the right or rationalise the Taliban's beliefs, I must have been communicating myself very poorly if that's how it came accross because I usually despise those aloof little twats who seperate themselves from humanity for the sake of a bit of self-importance, and had no desire to represent that view.

I need sleep. Tell you what, tomrrow I'll try to clean up my argument till it makes some kind of sense, and then fire it back to you if you're still up for discussing this later on. It's a talk that's worth having.

I get what you're saying, I think. Any human death, for whatever reason, is a waste. This is true, and I'm glad you think that, and I wish other people did too. And I don't think you need explaining/reasoning to. But I'm going to say this anyway because I had to read your and treblaine's massive walls of text.

It's a shame the taliban have to die, because of what they could be. It is, however, NOT a shame that we are killing them, because of what they are. You've said this yourself, in a roundabout way. And you are right, it is a shame we have to do it with bullets, if only we could kill the belief itself.

However.

Have you ever actually seen a belief killed? It would have to be proved utterly and completely wrong, such as the earth being flat. The taliban, like numerous other organizations, have overcome this disadvantage. They've done this by growing their roots down into theology. By doing this they provide their own reasoning, their own truths. And, due to the nature of theology, we can't kill that belief. As the movie character "V" once said, "beneath this mask there is more than just flesh, there is an idea, and idea's are bullet-proof."

Thankfully, the man carrying the idea is not. And that is why the taliban have to die.[footnote]On the bright side, there are reports that radical islamists have a bit of a self destructive theology. No sane person is much willing to blow themselves up, for whatever reason.[/footnote]

Seriously, find a way to kill an idea, and you've found a way to kill religion. When you do that, contact me. >_>

 

[Caverat]

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.

I disagree about the use of such craft being wrong. It reduces casualties in a number of ways, and not just the obvious one for the side using them. These unmanned craft are very stealthy, and are able to get in close to potential targets to identify key personnel/hardware, and making surgical strikes which not only minimize the casualties amoung the enemy's forces as you remove the leadership, reducing the enemy's will/capability to fight. It also reduces collateral damage/casualties as the drones are being used in pinpoint attacks.

It would be immoral to have these tools, and not use them. The alternative would be to use larger ordnance from a greater distance to reduce the risk of death amoung friendly personnel. Apache's are nice, but they tend to discriminate far less than drones as they are piloted by people who will be scared of anyone shouldering anything, even what ends up being a large tv camera, for fear of being shot down.

If anything, the west should expand its arsenal of remote controlled combat vehicles. Not just air, but ground as well. Would allow friendly's to take more chances in identifying potential threats without having to risk anyone's life with more aggressive combat actions.

 

[RadiusXd]

because they are the enemy, you said it yourself. its not like we have souls, these are complex groupings of neurons arranged in a way that means the person is going to try killing everyone who doesn't agree with his views because an imaginary friend of his promised a stay at a resort after he dies.
they want to kill us. fuck em.

So, according to you, we pretty much can't do anything about any of this, because we're all just numbers reacting to external stimuli that nobody has any control over, and free will is merely an illusion caused by ignorance of the complex chemical and quantum interactions that give an end result of such concepts as "Thought" and "Self Awareness".

That "Friend" of our Enemy is just as imaginary as Freedom, and every other concept out there worth fighting for (Yes, even "Survival").

Also... As an "Imperial" force, the U.S. is not at "War" in a traditional sense. Yes, our enemies are fighting a War against us, but we are neutralizing Threats to Stability and Order, for which UAV are very well-suited for.

no, people are free to make the choices that they think will make them happy, just as long as it doesn't impact on the happiness of others.

and yes, we do respond to external stimuli. We do not break the laws of physics and are a part of this universe. it's an intricate and beautiful equation of sorts. whether there is chance on a quantum level is for people other then me to determine.

when I punch terrorist organisation member into my calculator it makes a picture of a baneling. you don't walk up to banelings saying "free shot guys!" when you can bombard them from the comfort of a forward base.

 

[Treblaine]

Yes, that's a very reasonable assumption that they are targeting extremists. Do you think Barack Obama is fucking around just wasting missiles targeting tangential moderate members likely to switch sides? No. They are working their way down the food chain.

Firstly, the President of the USA does not manage day to day operations in Afghanistan.

Secondly, you know that UAVs are used for (amongst other things) close air support? Now, yes, there are plenty of reasons why an Army/Marine/Allied/whomever commander might find air power unavailable, "The people shooting at you don't look extremist enough" is unlikely to crop up all that much.

And if you are suggesting these organisations are of "freedom fighters" do you really think it is necessary to murder schoolchildren to "defend their homeland". Because that is the unapologetic Taliban strategy.

Right, so everyone fighting against the ISAF must, by virtue of that fact, support the murder of schoolkids?

The only thing they are "defending their homeland" from is from justice, freedom and decency for their people. Do not have any delusions that these monsters hiding in the mountain are some warriors resisting invasion, they have virtually no popular support the little popular support they has is out of fear from the threat of reprisals and from fools who have been seduced by the death cults of suicide attacks for an eternity of hedonism.

So, the only threat to the ISAF/people of Afghanistan is one homogenuous mass (who are somehow able to operate despite no popular support)? There aren't any petty warlords or tribal leaders out for themselves, either, or glorified criminal elements? It's just the Taliban and nobody else?

No, but he does designate who should be targeted and for example in the raid on Usama Bin Laden's complex he took personal responsibility for ordering the strike. Also, every military action in Pakistan needs explicit Presidential approval.

And Yes, fighting the ISAF puts you on the side with The Taliban and Al Qaeda who have made clear their tactic of reprisal murder, including against children, is to be expected.

The drug lords and warlords are Machiavellian opportunists, they will side with whichever will give them power and comfort. There is no "third side" to this, there may be elements that can't decide which side they would rather be on but attacking the ISAF clearly put you on the side of the Taliban. You are undermining and directly trying to kill the elements which are trying to defeat the Taliban.

There are two side in this conflict: for justice, freedom and decency... or for tyranny, oppression and barbarism!

You can't kill ISAF troops and act like "hurr, I'm doing it for another reason" you know THE RESULT may contribute to even a partial withdrawl where the Taliban move back in and burn down the school and begin another orgy of reprisals.

 

[The Lugz]

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"

I don't know what commands the drone perceives as input information, but i highly doubt it would match any commercially available flight sim data package

because, who wants some modder making his flight yoke into a command post for a military drone?

nice idea though, i doubt anyone receiving keystrokes from a military drone would know what to do with them that's probably why the military thinks it's largely benign
although, the military aren't above using xbox controllers for these things.. ( yah really )

http://gamepolitics.com/2008/07/20/military-using-game-controllers-pilot-drones-disarm-bombs

could get real if someone reprograms their xbox.

 

[AmayaOnnaOtaku]

Ok who forgot to update the antivirus software on the drones?

Or this is why you DON'T use Norton

 

[Siege_TF]

I wanted Viruses and Malware to be included in the Patriot Act; some nasty viruses have cost millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to American corperations (who are legal bodies), and as such are attacks on America, and could forseeably cause serious damage to the military, but NOOOO the boss had to be an idiot who doesn't know a thing about the internets.

 

[Del-Toro]

Bit OT, but I've always thought it a little amusing that a lot of the Armies tech. is controlled via Xbox 360 controllers.
I saw a documentary on Afghanistan recently and the UAV pilots were flying them using a 360 controller. So I'm guessing there has to be a fair bit of equipment with the US Army that has had 360 controller drivers coded for them.

(random pics)

I refuse to believe that these pictures aren't somehow allegorical.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

I talked to someone in the almost know, and was informed this is likely just testing software, a big deal in the intelligent weapons race for contractors these days.

 

[Treblaine]

Bit OT, but I've always thought it a little amusing that a lot of the Armies tech. is controlled via Xbox 360 controllers.
I saw a documentary on Afghanistan recently and the UAV pilots were flying them using a 360 controller. So I'm guessing there has to be a fair bit of equipment with the US Army that has had 360 controller drivers coded for them.

(random pics)

The military have ALWAYS used civilian and commercial based components for tsks if it is the best tool for the job.

You have to admit, the Xbox 360 is a good computer input device for the tpy of output they want to emulate, while still reliable and durable, do you really think it would be wise to blow say $50 Million of taxpayers money trying to design, develop, test and manufacture another controller (in a small batch size) that in all likelihood won't be as good, won't be as familiar and won't be as compatible.

Just buy a load of them off the shelf. It's the cheapest, quickest and most effective option.

The first Red Dot sight was used for sport hunting. The first red dot sights used in combat was designed for hunters, but used by special forces anyway. In fact in the early stages of Afghan/Iraq wars many soldiers procured ans used their own sights, magazines and muzzle devices from the civilian market.

See the vast commercial market has an economy of scale even the largest of armies would be jealous of. Ideally the US Military should try to buy civilian off-the-shelf stuff as much as possible unless it is specifically unfit for military requirements though frankly the danger of 1-star-reviews to sales the massive commercial market can often over-specify even above military standard.