shouldnt we stop using direct troop involvement, in wars?

Question

in their stead use drones to fight wars. we have had the technology to do so since the 50s. yet, still we fight them with our sons and daughters. there was a time when we fought in lines allowing our enemy to see us, and shoot 1st. only then would we return fire. to do otherwise "was cowardly acts". same as injuns hiding behind trees were perceived to be. til we used their expert advice in wwII. their cowardly ways, became our "special ops team tactics" to win! isnt it time we stop dying for a fight? i am a US ARMY veteran, we wouldnt loose our ppl, our strength, or our pride to serve & protect. we would protect those lives who choose to serve! knowing this, our enemies would be reluctant to engage. which is the primary goal of all miltia, prevention by mere presence a show of force

look up DOD scheduled costs to train e5s the back bone of the military. and youll see how lil a robot costs compared to a soldier
however, knowing what youre saying in practice, one drone could do more damage than a battalion. no medics no hospitalization. we would as i sd, still have troop involvement it would be behind lines far removed from harms way

not unmanned drones, robots are manned by teams & group leaders. where as one soldier in the field might mistake or misread an act. drones in the field perform their task by level headed trained specs in safe environments supervised as well.
no more prisoners of war on our side.

there are programed drones which act independently of human (manned) interaction. id def expect our war machine drones to be hands on ( manned) for thinking decisions in the field

except in rare cases machines do kill ppl. it isnt hand to hand combat. all im saying is instead of a trooper holding a weapon (ok, no gun jokes) in the field. they would be holding a joystick (ok, again no gun jokes ;o) in a remote location away from the battelfield other than by satelite uplink

Answer 1

People are cheaper than robots.

Answer 2

I'm a U.S.M.C. vetran myself. No matter how great our technology is, there will allways be situations where you need boots on the ground. A loaded M-16 on patrole is usualy more effective in detering would be troublemakers than a combat drone any day.
That said, there will allways be those who wont be detered no matter what you do. Thats when you trade up for an M-203 or an M-249.The plain fact is, troops in the field help insure a greater measure of success.

Answer 3

1) Wars will end when the people who authorize them actually have to fight them.

2) the gov't won't disband direct troop involvement, as that would mean dumping a large force- with military training- on the unemployment line. How soon before they decide to overthrow the corrupt US govt? So the gov't has to keep them pointed at the enemy.

3) Letting our soldiers die on the battlefield thru direct troop involvement is the surest way to keep people hating the enemy.

Answer 4

As a mother of a LT & Ranger in US Army, I am more afraid of machines fighting or having the ability to kill, than I am of my son going into Afghanistan. I saw that Will Smith movie - just kidding but when machines start killing men where does it stop.

Answer 5

Two good reasons. The technology is still too flawed, and even so, we would still need real people involved even on the ground. Second, too many people depend on being employed by the military.

Answer 6

would never work.