Thread: Eye in the Sky

Originally Posted by akula

I agree with you that compared to an invasion much, much less loss of life using drones. This doesnt mean drones are a good idea/useful.

I realise that drones work differently from machine guns, but I m still reminded of the fact that Dr Richard Gatling believed that his invention would save lives.

It didn't quite turn out that way..

BBC iWonder - Did the machine-gun save lives in WW1?

When, in 1861, Dr Richard Gatling patented the Gatling gun ? one of the first reliable hand-cranked machine-guns ? his humanitarian vision was based on a desire to end wars. He believed that his invention would instantly convey to the military a reason not to go to war in the first place, or at least reduce the number of men who would be placed in harm's way.

Originally Posted by cuppabillytea

For fear of being the victim of an honest mistake, or an over zealous security person, or one that thought it might be fun to light up my freckle?

Every LEO has the ability to do that.

Originally Posted by vnx205

I realise that drones work differently from machine guns, but I m still reminded of the fact that Dr Richard Gatling believed that his invention would save lives.

It didn't quite turn out that way..

BBC iWonder - Did the machine-gun save lives in WW1?

When, in 1861, Dr Richard Gatling patented the Gatling gun ? one of the first reliable hand-cranked machine-guns ? his humanitarian vision was based on a desire to end wars. He believed that his invention would instantly convey to the military a reason not to go to war in the first place, or at least reduce the number of men who would be placed in harm's way.

I remember when people argued that nuclear bombs such as dropped on Japan saved lives but it didn't work out that way.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

I remember when people argued that nuclear bombs such as dropped on Japan saved lives but it didn't work out that way.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

How so?

Having the bombs didn't deter people from starting wars, it just encouraged different ways of fighting.

Let's not forget Alfred Nobel. His genius enabled the carnage of WW1, supposedly the War to end all Wars. Just twenty years later we had WW2. So much for saving lives with Weapons of Mass Destruction.
It could be argued that so far Nuclear Weapons have saved lives because even our greatest Psychopathic lunatics have been afraid to use them. Probably because the fear that they would not survive if they did, or worse still, they would be left alone in a world with no one to intimidate, torture, Maim or Kill.
Nuclear Weapons so far have meant that war between Great Powers can't happen because of the inevitable consequences. That means great saving of life. They have bought us time until the next truly great lunatic comes along who can inspire or cajole enough people to follow him to Doomsday.




Oh wait!!!! I think I'm getting Combe Over Phobia.

The article in my link mentions the potential deterrent effect of the Gatling gun.

Another book I read on the development of machine guns said that Gatling's theory about how his gun would save lives also included the fact that back then, many more soldiers died of disease than from bullets.

He argued that with a machine gun, a much smaller number of men would be needed to win the battle. With fewer men in the field, fewer would die from disease.

The death toll from gun posts on the Western Front in Europe in WWI was just huge, so I don't think Gatling did much to save anybody there. The generals just demanded repeated suicidal charges against the gun posts.
I'm reading a biography of Sir John Monash at the moment and one of the reasons he was so respected was he actually tried to devise ways to avoid suicidal attacks on gun posts, which saved a lot of lives.
Currently, the gun buying frenzy in the USA proves that more people having bigger guns just makes society increasingly dangerous, I think.
As for nuclear weapons deterring attacks, does anyone really think the North Korean madman is too cautious to attack the South, Japan or even the USA just because of the inevitable retaliation? The fear is he's so crazy suicidal he'd do it anyway. He would attack the South just to provoke a retaliation so he could claim he was right all along that the North was under threat, when actually it was his own actions which caused the threat. He would regard himself as a hero for dying for his cause.