Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

redgreenandblue

(2,117 posts)
40. I'm guessing you are trying to derive from this an argument in favor of
Sat Mar 9, 2013, 05:38 AM
Mar 2013

the current policy of targeted assassinations of "suspected militants". Like it saves lives or something like that. "Had there be drones there wouldn't have been a Hitler."

There isn't such an argument because this would be comparing apples to oranges.

For one, it is an a-historical argument which sets up the premises in exactly such a way which is tailored to lead to the desired conclusion. It completely ignores how the real world works.

The civil war (and WWII) was a war which was waged between parties which had armies of roughly the same proportion and effectiveness. If you postulate a huge technological advantage on one side of the war then yes, it would have played out differently. That doesn't mean it would have been less deadly. It might have descended into the form of "asymmetric warfare" and taken an even larger civilian toll.

You are assuming a lot of things, such as that the "enemy commanders" are not aware of the drone threat and are not taking precautionary measures such as blending in with the civilian population. If Lincoln had drones then the civil war would perhaps have been more like the Vietnam war and less like the revolutionary war. Maybe the use of drones would have lead to the secessionists achieving their political goals, due to the collateral damage making it impossible to reconcile both halves of the country.

Second, it is not obvious that the warfare paradigm should apply to the current situation, despite what some sophists on this board like to argue using a lot of bloomy language and hot air. There were many unsuccessful attempts on Hitlers life. Had they been successful then maybe the war would have been shorter. But the Taliban are not Hitler or "the confederate states". Apples and oranges. There isn't really a good historical analogy.

Maybe pirates works. Would the British crown have been justified in sending ninja assassins into the colonies to kill people of whom the King "simply knows" they are pirates?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

How do you bomb military leaders? BainsBane Mar 2013 #1
oh say a well placed drone fired missile into the south carolina capitol bldg arely staircase Mar 2013 #2
Why the South Carolina capitol? HoneychildMooseMoss Mar 2013 #14
i think the individual state governments that were in a state of rebellion retained arely staircase Mar 2013 #15
Would you have posed this question if Bush and not Obama was making the same claims re drones? MotherPetrie Mar 2013 #3
that isn't an option in my scenario arely staircase Mar 2013 #5
I wasn't referring to drones outside the U.S. MotherPetrie Mar 2013 #32
then in what context has president obama suggested using them other than that? arely staircase Mar 2013 #33
I Believe He Had a Right to Target Political Leaders On the Road Mar 2013 #4
would you limit political leaders to the executive branch? arely staircase Mar 2013 #6
I wouldn't. nt Comrade_McKenzie Mar 2013 #7
He probably wouldn't have used it against political leaders Prism Mar 2013 #8
but with lee, jackson, etc. arely staircase Mar 2013 #11
That's fair comment Prism Mar 2013 #18
War is war BainsBane Mar 2013 #16
I think our current drone discussion is quite peripheral Prism Mar 2013 #20
one thing is sure BainsBane Mar 2013 #21
I'm surprised more Democrats don't heed the obvious question Prism Mar 2013 #22
If Lincoln had a time machine and a drone? Check please NightWatcher Mar 2013 #9
well in real life, sure arely staircase Mar 2013 #12
Okay...I laughed out loud at that one! nt. OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #13
SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL RULES! WilliamPitt Mar 2013 #30
He did have a drone: Ulric Dhalgren. sofa king Mar 2013 #10
I think you mean moot point... octothorpe Mar 2013 #17
indeed i do arely staircase Mar 2013 #23
John Wilkes Booth was a drone and knocked off a political leader. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2013 #19
depends on which side you are on arely staircase Mar 2013 #24
The war was over. End of combat, end of story. nt DevonRex Mar 2013 #35
Of course treestar Mar 2013 #25
Pointless poll. Wars are fought within the current technological premises. redgreenandblue Mar 2013 #26
well yes it is a completely theoretical discussion arely staircase Mar 2013 #36
Assassination of leaders has existed as long as wars. It has always been of limited strategic value. redgreenandblue Mar 2013 #27
good point, aside from any ethical debate on the subject arely staircase Mar 2013 #37
I'm guessing you are trying to derive from this an argument in favor of redgreenandblue Mar 2013 #40
then you guess wrong arely staircase Mar 2013 #43
Si. graham4anything Mar 2013 #28
Funny you should put it that way... JHB Mar 2013 #29
We'd argue over the Ethics of using Whale Oil to power it. nt One_Life_To_Give Mar 2013 #31
no need. i'm assuming lincoln having drones means arely staircase Mar 2013 #38
He could use it on vampires Capt. Obvious Mar 2013 #34
not really arely staircase Mar 2013 #39
Since we are playing "a-historical what-if", here is how I think it would have played out: redgreenandblue Mar 2013 #41
...it would be cool if they put a big fuckin' hat on it. Warren DeMontague Mar 2013 #42
I voted just as you were editing to remove the poll. MineralMan Mar 2013 #44
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»if abraham lincoln had a ...»Reply #40