The future is cyber warfare. Target the powergrid of the target nation with virusses and malware like that. Hospitals. Traffic control system, air traffic. Hoover dam control centre. Nuclear powerplants.

Stuxnet, anyone? It was the first war strike of the new era.

I hate to say that Russia, China and especially India have very good programmers.

Next will be biological agents that can do ethnicity-depending target selection. Virusses that go after people with a certain mark or combination in their genes.

If it is run with Windows it is sure to fail without or without the help of malware. This includes the drones. But you are correct in the sense that the dependency on computers that require electricity and cable/satellites to function do leave a open wound. Once salt is poured in that wound everything grinds to a halt. I'm willing to bet most here who utilize a computer at work will tell you that business stops when any one of the components that make up the system quits.

I do believe biological is more of a concern than electronic warfare.

Oh, then! When our wonderful, sorry - woeful, Labour government sold all ours! :/\\!!

:timeout: Drones are already being used in the US! Law enforcement and military use. Wake up people, it's time we stand up and say enough is enough :shifty:

NO !!!!! I demand there must be at least a dozen police drones buzzing over my head all the time. Otherwise some rage nerd could shoot a poison dart at me!

You have twenty seconds to comply

The real scary thing is that we have killed over 2000 Islamic terrorists with these drones and still there are more Islamic terrorists out there.

If the Brits killed 2000 members of the PIRA in 8 years it would have effectively wiped out the organization. Other well known non-Islamic terrorist groups (RAF, AD etc) would have been wiped out dozens of times over.

Just how many Islamic Terrorists are out there? That they can take 2000 casualties and be unaffected should be a sign we are fighting a much bigger war than we think. :03:

First of all, you are assuming all 2,000 were terrorists, many may have been guilty of nothing more than mistaken identity, faulty intel or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You also have the true "collaterals", many of these strikes take out the target's wife, children, relatives, employees, friends, neighbours, etc.

Second, the Israelis have be carrying out "targeted killings" of "terrorists" for over 40 years without substantially improving the situation, why should the U.S. approach be more effective?

May have been this, may have been that. As long as you do not know that the rate of misidentifying is above that what needs to be expected as faults happening in war, there is just hear-say and wordings that aim atpainting the most negative image possible

. The question is how many. It is war. War is injust, and part opf the grim truth about war is that it not only kills "combatants", but also civilians. It would be better, of course, if the enemy in thsi war would mobey the Hague Landwarfe Convention - loike Wetsern nations - and marks himself as combatants by wearing proper uniforms instead of hiding intentionally within the civilian population to make himself "invisible", or provoking civlian losse sin order to score in the propaganda war. War kills. War cannot be waged without killing. One can ask - and I do, as you know - whether this war is wise. But at least one effect cannot be denied, no matter how much stupidity we have shown in Afghanistan: every Taliban fanatic killed is a Taliban fanatic who will do us no harm anymore.

What means "improving the situation"? They interfere seriously with their enemy's planned operations, and kill his leaders and fighters. Again, this is good. It is war. If they would have stopped to fight back, Israel maybe would no longer be existent today, or would seize to exist in the forseeable future.

It's war. That's not nice. But that's what it is. You can ask for ending the war. If you accept the conseqeunces, that at least would be honest. But please do not expect us to fight a war by saving the enemy and allowing him to get stronger than he would if we do not shoot at him.

I personally consider it to be absurd, and cynical, to ban certain weapons from usage in war, because they are considered to be "inhumane". War is inhumane. No matter whether your fight with bow and arrow, or neutron bombs. The tools of war do not make it any different: war is inhumane. So keep it short, as short as you can, and make certain you are sure about your motives and can defend them to your own conscience. If then you still decide for war, wage it with everything you have.

No Skybird, war is thoroughly humane. Not to fight wars would make us animals. And i do not mean that in a funny way.

That this is a "war", has been declared by characters like Bush, Wolfowitz and Cheney. I will leave Powell out of there, for now. But it is interesting to see how this media propaganda bull**** still works, in the minds of some. This climate of fear is ridiculous.
Can you really wage "war" against people not wearing a uniform, not belonging to a nation, and committing assassinations ? This is police and intelligence work, imho, and not war.

The US have declared war to several nations in the last decades, some were called interventions (the middle and south Americas), some war, for all kinds of reasons. Now they have declared war not only to terrorists, but to a religion.

Now people are killed by US weapons, in countries not knowing or agreeing to this, all over the world, without trial, without asking their government, killing innocent civilians as "collateral damage" as they cynically say, without even knowing for sure whether the target is a criminal or not - not by the jurisdiction of the nation where it happens, and not even by their own jurisdiction.
We will see if the worldwide condition changes to the better, and a better international understanding, with that new approach.

Pardon...?

"Some"? You mean me. I have nothing in common with the names you mentioned. These treacherous reptiles do not share my determined view on war - that's why they so easily and carelessly triggered them and foguht them with a light heart and did not care for there own troops being sacrificed for - well, essentially for nothing worth their sacrifices.

It is not only an offence you mention me in one sentence with these unscrupulous basterds. It also illustrates that you do not have the slightest clue on what I am about.

In parts it is. But mind you, Afghanistan is not Gaza or West Jordan. Anyway, we talk about asymmetrical wars, where the inferior tries to compensate for his inferiority by non-conventional tactics and means, which includes undiscriminating terror against civilian population, and a boycott of the Hague Land warfare Convention that necessarily works to the disadvantage of the one side obeying it if the other refuses to do so. To achieve this effect also is a strategy of asymmetrical warfare, like is hiding in hospitals, establishing ammo dumps in schools and build missile and mortar sites on civilian houses' roofs so that the enemy either does not shoot at them to prevent collaterla damage, or does, and then causes collateral damage that the targetted side then can use in public relation and propaganda scoring. During the Lebanon war, Hezbollah seized southern villages and forced the people by weapons to stay there instead of fleeing, in the hope that they would get killed by Israeli shelling or air strike, which would make good headlines Hezbollah than could make use of to win the propaganda war.

Formally they have not, instead the repeated over and over again that this were not a war against Islam - it is me in this forum saying since years and again that the war on terror is a stupid term and only makes sense when you understand that you must fight against the ideology motivating the enemy, which in this case is Islam, yes. There is no "war on terror", as there is no war on submarines, on tanks or on cruisers. You wage war against the nation, the people, the faction owning these weapons and using them. weapons and tactics are just this: weapons and tactics. Tools.

But that is academic formalities only. War is what war does - once the dying has began you do not care that much for polite formalities anymore. For the soldiers fighting it, once the shooting begins and it is either themselves or the enemy, all ideals and motivations quickstart right into Nirvana, and the whole thing comes down to the level of simple survival. If somebody starts to swing the barrel of a cannon at my direction, it'S time to stop talking and shoot at him. If somebody lobs grenades into the houses of my neighbourhood in an intended and deliberate attempt to kill families and "non-combatants", aiming at them indeed and not at military targets, this is terror as a tool of war by intention, and as such I react to it. I try to kill the terrorists. If he happens to hide inside his "civilian" family - well, fly with the crows, get shot with crows. If he would agree to separate himself from non-military targets by wearing uniform and not building an HQ below a hospital, collateral damages would dramatically drop.

Aiming at enemies and not always being able to prevent collateral damage is not the same as intentionally aiming at civilians in order to spread fear and terror.

I hope you see that it is dangerous to think you can defeat an enemy intentionally abusing and ignoring the Land Warfare Convention while you respect it yourself, one-sidely.

Would it better be Swedish weapons? Do you really think that terror regimes need to comply with their key figures getting eliminated? Do you argue for the same "method" when it comes to law-enforcement in Germany? The polie shall only do arrest when the suspect agrees?

All over the world? that was new to me.

Thank God you do not design the rules of enaggement for combat forces. They are in parts already insane enough.

YXes. There is no point in asking the patron of terrorists for his agreement to kill his staff. By that giving warnings to the target and allowing the patron to help him escape and find a new hideout.

The air force does not drop bombs on somebody just because he is "criminal". when you steal a car, rob a bank or evade taxes - then you are criminal. the type of men thy drop bombs on, have some heavier marks in their records, I would say. War fighter, terrorist, guerilla - call it what you want. I do not rate these as categories of "crime".

In case of Pakistan, Gaza, and Iraq, I do not give much for their precious jurisdiction. I have a problem with the jurisdiction of the whole Arab world, to be honest, since it is highyl discrminating, arbitraily, corrupt, and in violation of basic human rights. Not to mention the general attitude towards women. I see little worth to be respected there. I could - but only by violating my own ethical values and moral standards. So you maybe see the problem I have there.

Targets of drone attacks get selected not for no reason. I expect that some results of accoridng evaluation processes or intel puzzles are false, but that is part of war, I'm sorry, ther eis no way top wage a perfect, error-free, clean, civilised, surgical war. That is not cancial. That is accepting the real nature of war. It is not civiuklised. Not peaceful. Not holy or just or fair. It is cahos, and considering that the ammount of efforty trying to bring order to it and not kill just anything that moves withiout discirmninating between bystander and target, is remarkable.

By your logic a nation can declare war against anothger n ation an declaer it illegal that that nation should firee and fight back. By that, it can fight against that nation, while the target nation is expected to sit still.

Reminds of what the eU usually epxects of Israel: sit still and do nothing when its people get attac ked by missiles and mortar rounds. That precious peace process, you know. In Vietnam, it was called "Paris negotiations", and these bound the American military'S hands on the back. The outcome was unacceptable.

Why the Israelis even go as far as to give 20 minute warnings to houses where supects live so that not only the people there but also the intended targets can escape, is beyond me, though. It makes the whole idea of shooting at target persons absurd. (They for example drop dud bombs by airplöane that just fall thro9uzgh the roof, but do not explode, then some time later the real bomb follows, usually 15-30 minutes later. The hous emenawhile got evacuated - the targets of course, too. Think they call it knock-knock-bombing or somehtign like that).

Yes, and maybe one day we all will sit together on the mmadow in the sunshine and sing andlaugh and dance together. Lovely.

And I am certain: hopelessly unrealistic. So I stay with these two pieces of wisdom:
1. It is better to have weapons and being able to fight, and not needing to, than to find out that one needs to, but not being able and niot having weapons.
2. From LOTR: Those refusing to pick up a sword still can get killed by a sword.

Since you are German, I recommend these two books to you:

LINK

LINK2

P.S. One thing. Some days ago, in some German newspaper, there was a lengthy article saying that all drone strikes in Pakistan - ALL - are decided on by Obama himself, no subordinate whatever. There is no automatism by lower military ranks for drone strikes in Pakistan. He gets a full briefing, he assesses it, and then decides for or against it. Personally, and in every individual case.

Take this as you want, as positive or negative.

If the brits had killed 2000 provos it would mean they had killed about 1500 of their own employees:03:

@Skybird:
Well you completely misunderstood me, but it is fine you like that kind of total "war"fare so much.

With having no permission i certainly mean the head or parliament of a state or nation to allow other nations to kill terrorists in their country, not asking the warlord or a criminal. Does the US ask the countries it kills people in ?
And is it really the criminal you are looking for, judged by some hushhush camera pictures, and grainy films ? So he's at a wedding ? Kill them all.

The "West" has itself driven, financed and built up the very terrorism it now encounters, warlords, Islam and all, against "communism", and Muenzler has not mentioned it once. There was no responsability back then, and there is none now.

And killing without trial is exactly that - you suspect something, and this is enough for you to kill him, via a pushed button, from your room. And then you go downstairs and have breakfast with your family. This is not only cowardly, this is atrocious, against all treaties that ever were. There are no words for this kind of "asymmetric warfare" indeed.

If you do it that way you are not much better than the others you fight against - which certainly seems to suit you, it is total war, Sun-Tzu in "Reinkultur", winning is all and to hell with democracy, jurisdiction and human rights. I would love to see you in a war that is being led by the very methods you so seem to love, out of your comfy chair.

Just like the german Verfassungsschutz, with the NeoNazis.
B.t.w. this german Verfassungsschutz was founded by the OSS, to look for and warn of communist actions in Germany. No wonder they are blind on the right-wing Nazi eye. Our retired (yesterday) latest head of the VS had to learn it the hard way.