Group items tagged

Drone attacks are actually a major topic in this year's debate resolution (about troops in several countries, including countries in the Middle East). A major argument against the use of drones is the fact that they are unmanned. This means that the risk of losing soldiers is taken out of the equation when ordering military strikes. This risk has been one of the foremost deterrents against unnecessary military operations in the past. While the operations may be effective, many civilians are killed in the process, and there is significant collateral damage. Lastly, since the drones are stealthy, it is easier for the U.S. to evade accusations by not confessing to owning or using drones.

Drone attacks are a key part of the US's couterterrorism strategy in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.They have proven fairly successful at targeting militants but they also often kill innocent civilians by accident. Many see drones as being much more cost effective then other counterinsurgency or nation building efforts in those countries. A growing debate in the military now is the shift from counterinsurgency (nation building) to counterteorrism (drones) because it is much more cost effective and it requries less military casualties. Originally the drones were only used in Afghanistan, but now they have started targetting terrorists in Pakistan. The civilian lives lost in drone attacks in Pakistan hurt US-Pakistan relations.

Bakhmut, a city with a prewar population of 70,000, is critical to Russia's objective of taking the rest of the mineral-rich Donbas region. On battlefields in the rolling hills of the Donbas in eastern Ukraine, and near the Black Sea in the south, Ukrainian troops have tried to inch forward without losing control of territory. However, they face an opponent whose forces have been bolstered by inmates-turned-fighters and by Iranian drones.

As the US armed forces have to scale back due to sequestration, the biggest problem afflicting the Army is how it will adapt--not only to budget cuts, but to a new era of warfare. Drone strikes and special operations are becoming more prominent and crucial for taking out national security threats in foreign countries, but do these smaller operations merit a downsizing of the the current active-duty troop body? Some top officials think it's important to maintain a larger army in case we need to mobilize (i.e. war with Iran or North Korea). On the other hand, other officials think a downsizing is imperative: today, the Army spends absurd amounts on health care and other benefits (52% increase since 2001), while ineffective officers remain in the army so they can receive retirement pensions. As Defense Analyst Arnold Punaro says in this article, "The Department of Defense [is going to turn] into a benefits company that occasionally kills a terrorist". In short, the US Army must change, but it's not clear how that will happen.

The U.N. has officially made the first authoritative statement that the Syrian Government is responsible for a recent Chemical attack that killed 83 people and injured close to 300. Coincidentally, this statement was made in the midst of international community loosening and removing all opposition to the Syrian government.

Yet another example of airstrikes causing unprecedented civilian casualties. Interesting that it can be this difficult to pinpoint the perpetrators of such a violent attack.

This is so sad that there are chemical attacks on rebel-held towns, but they are also having drastic effects on the people that live there, and so many people are dying! This really brings into question if chemicals should still be used for warfare.

This is the first time shots have been fired during this most recent Taiwan-China conflict. Knowing the nature of both sides' militaries, who will know what happens after this.

I've always been reminded every now in then of the conflict between these two powers that are so close together, mostly on the internet and in school. I remember when I first learned about how Taiwan considers itself independent from China and how tension has been raising throughout the years. It's crazy to see that this tension could lead to fighting between the sides and how other world powers such as the US will respond. Especially with how big trading with China is for us.

Interesting observations, Subby, Will and Duncan! Let's also remember that Taiwan was the official stand-in for "China" in the United Nations for 26 years! (1950-1976), during which the US denied China's existence and Taiwan sat in the United Nations representing all of China). Getting Taiwan back in the communist fold would represent an important piece in President Xi's geopolitical ambitions, along with subjugating the Tibetans and the Uighurs, claiming territorial rights around the human-made islands in the South China Sea, and expanding the Belt and Road initiatives all over Asia. It's a LOT.