Drones are 21st Century Superweapons

There's this strange sense in the zeitgeist that robotic warfare is somehow disreputable. If you read the news, hardly a day goes past without some deprecatory reference to the use of drones by the United States in its ongoing war against al-Qaeda and affiliated groups. The sense that there is something amiss with the deployment of drones in combat permeates popular media. Indeed, thinking off the top of my head, I can't think of a single example in recent popular culture where the deployment of a drone has been positively portrayed. I believe that this is madness -- the sort of reflexive prejudice that revolutionary weapons often face from people who lack the knowledge necessary to have informed opinions about such matters. A major reason why I wrote my newest novel, Robot General, is to argue that, like the submarine or the aircraft at the dawn of the 21st Century, combat robots (both land and air based) have the potential to wholly revolutionize warfare. Used properly, they can become a class of so-called "superweapons" -- weapons so new and revolutionary that they can beat anything possessed by an opponent and whose use is so devastating as to crush the morale of our enemies. Deployed properly, drones can become a table-turning tool of asymmetrical warfare. The technology required to manufacture them and the logistical base required to support them in substantial numbers is beyond the capacity of all of the likely enemies of the United States and the West in the near-term.

Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reform
Latinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...
[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance
...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.
[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
Rand Paul’s Really Ignorant Paragraph
Here's the passage at issue: In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out. Let's leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase "war caucus" to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president. Instead, let's just look at a little history here -- because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing. One would be hard pressed to find even a single historian, whether right, left, or center, who would argue anything other than that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was not just a huge factor, but probably an essential one, in the Soviets' ultimate loss of the Cold War. The mujaheddin did much to help bleed the Soviets dry, at a comparatively negligible cost to the United States (for smuggled military hardware and some intelligence). "We all know how well that worked out," said Sen. Paul, dismissively, of the work of our "war caucus" to support the mujaheddin. Yes, we do: It played a key role in helping us win the Cold War. Anybody who doesn't understand that is either foolish or invincibly ignorant. Second, it is a myth that the United States "armed bin Laden." False, false, false. It is also a falsehood to say that bin Laden was a major player within the mujeheddin or in the anti-Soviet war effort at all. Finally, it is false even to say that the Afghani effort against the Soviets was primarily, or even largely, about "jihad." It was a defensive effort against armed invaders, not an offensive effort by "radicals" in the name of Allah.
[Posted on 02/09/2013 7:33:41 AM PST by LSUfan]
Redstate.com bans new Ron Paul supporters
If Ron Paul supporters wish to spam attack FR, our members, our Commander-in-Chief, our war effort, etc, please feel free to do it elsewhere. Antiwar activism is no more welcome on FR than is abortion activism, gay rights activism, gun control activism or any other leftist/socialist cause.
[Posted on 10/23/2007 10:41:04 PM PDT Jim Robinson]

A cardinal rule of warfare is that, no matter how good a new weapons idea might be, expectations of what it can do will always be too high; and the next order of business is to find a counter to it.

What comes to mind is a means to detect drones, and a whole range of inexpensive surface to air missiles. Beyond that, anti-drone drones.

You might even send up a balloon that when it detects a drone, it drops a small anti-drone drone to attack it. Instead of having to use its fuel for lift, the anti-drone can glide descend, and attack the drone from above, rather than below.

Likewise, a balloon might have jamming equipment to block the control signals going to the drone, so it cannot evade the anti-drone systems.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.