To those who say drones and B-52's are indistinguishable, a question.

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. Diplomatically, there is no difference between a drone and a B-52.

They are U.S. military assets attacking a targets in a foreign country. Use of either could be considered an act of war.

The advantage of the B-52 is that it could be launched from the U.S., hit its target, and return.

The Drone requires a launching site in the area, say the Deck of a Carrier, a base, or an airfield. As I understand it, a drone can loiter around the target area until it finds a suitable target. A drone carries a relatively small payload. A b-52 doesn't loiter, it goes, drops its bombs, and then returns. it carries a heavy payload.

They are very different systems.

The Iraq war, and for most of the Afghan war, Drones were not used. We used carrier based and land based bombers. The Afghan and Iraq wars saw the development of drones as weapons of war.

A Drone is easier because it doesn't endanger the pilot and it is much cheaper than a B-52 to operate.

It is also important to remember that in Yemen we operated drones with the permission of the government. Pakistan has not given formal permission and has complained about their use. Iran captured a drone.

However, a B-52 and a drone would be used for very different missions. Now, in Libya it should be remembered that we used Carrier and Land based bombers in support of the Libyan rebels. The Libyan government considered those attacks acts of war. We were using close air support and bombing military units. Drones just don't have the payload to do that.

I think the mission would be the determining factor on what the President uses. If we are looking for Al Qaida number three's and number 2's using cell phones, a drone makes a lot more sense. If we want stealth, a drone makes sense. If we are giving close air support to rebels, or attacking organized military units, bombers make sense because drones don't pack enough ordnance.