Drones have something like a 90% militant mortality rate. The majority of civilian casualties come after the initial strike when they come to help those who have been hit -- and generally they arrive in unmarked vans so there's absolutely no way to identify who they are.

Israel, for all of its "surgical" strikes can't seem to keep the civilian casualty rate under 50% -- even if a group is using civilians as shields, there's no excuse for it to ever be over 70% especially in a small nation like Palestine. Finding, identifying and eliminating targets should be much easier for "the strongest military in the Middle East".

Israel really doesn't focus on drone warfare yet, but I guarantee their strikes would be much better if they were using them. Conventional munitions just don't have high success rates anymore.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by cokebottleag

I’m a Santos Republican

Member since Aug 2011

24028 posts

Posted on 8/1/14 at 3:01 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom

quote:
Israel, for all of its "surgical" strikes can't seem to keep the civilian casualty rate under 50% -- even if a group is using civilians as shields, there's no excuse for it to ever be over 70% especially in a small nation like Palestine. Finding, identifying and eliminating targets should be much easier for "the strongest military in the Middle East".

Yeah I don't agree with that. You're comparing drone strikes in a largely open rural environment (Afghanistan/Pakistan) to very dense urban combat where the enemy force is intentionally using habitation areas to draw fire of Israeli munitions. Gaza is almost universally a very DENSE urban terrain; even if you compare to Iraq, there were few if any drone strikes conducted in urban areas; most were rural or in spares suburban areas.

Its apples to oranges.

This post was edited on 8/1/14 at 3:04 pm

0 ...

Report Post

Off-Topic Board - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board