Jurassic World is one of the highest grossing films of all time, and for good reason. It has something for everybody to enjoy; dinosaurs, science, Chris Pratt, explosions, people getting eaten, children in mortal danger and, of course, Chris Pratt. Despite being loved, Jurassic World has a sub-plot that still confuses me. In the film, Chris Pratt’s character, Owen Grady, is training dinosaurs. Even if you didn’t see the movie you’ve at least seen the trailer and have a basic idea of what’s going on. Anyway, Vic Hoskins, the leader of the private security force contracted at Jurassic World, approaches Owen with an idea he has about using raptors in the armed forces to fight wars. Owen dismisses the idea, because he understands that the vicious dinosaurs can't be controlled by something they don't respect. In addition to the respect factor, he also dismisses the idea because Owen isn't six years old, and he realizes that the armed forces is no place for genetically bred dinosaurs.

"Sea World already rejected my plan to replace Navy submarines with sharks."

On the surface this seems like a pretty cool idea. It would be awesome to see raptors fighting terrorists overseas. I would love to see what the addition of these giant bird-lizards would do to our culture. We’d have Call of Duty games where you play as dinosaurs. Every couple of years a movie studio would roll out a patriotic, tear-jerking war epic that features raptors as the main characters. American Sniper currently has a 73% on Rotten Tomatoes. I like to think that throwing a few genetically modified velociraptors into the mix would push the film at least into the mid-90s. I would probably stop making fun of country music if Toby Keith and Brad Paisley were writing songs saluting the fearless service that dinosaurs are doing overseas to keep us safe.

Despite being a cool concept on the surface, this idea is terrible for a number of very practical reasons. First of all, Hoskins’ argument is that these animals are killing machines that can be used to fight enemies without putting our soldiers’ lives at risk. Does that description sound familiar? If you answered “yes”, congratulations, you’ve thought about this plan longer than he has. His description of this dinosaur brigade is exactly what fighting drones are designed to do. Drones swoop in, kill the bad guys, and swoop out. No American lives are at harm. A major drawback of drones are the civilian casualties, however. Hoskins seems to think that raptors are a way to solve this. Unfortunately, a bomb or a missile launched by a drone can't distinguish between who's a threat and who's completely innocent, but it's not like dinosaurs can. According to a carnivorous scaly emu (I'm trying to avoid using the word "raptor" too much), there are two types of things on this planet; things that are delicious, and things you can't eat. Terrorists and innocent people alike fall into the "delicious" category, so we can't expect these dinosaurs to complete their objectives without killing at least a few innocent people in the process.

Honestly, I'm not even hungry. I just enjoy killing.

Now we’ve established that raptors are going to cause civilian casualties, just like drones, but how do they stack up when it comes to killing bad guys? Drones are silent, heavily armed, and can attack from great distances, killing multiple enemies at once. Raptors, on the other hand, have to attack up close with their claws, are pretty much only stealthy when they’re in a jungle or a field of tall grass, and have to hunt their prey one by one. I googled "drone attack" and found out that just a few weeks ago a drone killed 25 people, including a senior ISIS commander. In Jurassic World, the raptors kill a handful of people, and three of them died in the process. Point, drones.

Sort of like a dinosaur, only way better in literally every comparable category.

So even if dinosaurs aren’t as efficient as drones, maybe they can still be of some use on the battlefield in dire situations. A situation arose in Jurassic World where the island security force was wiped out and there weren’t enough guns to use against the escaped dinosaurs. At this moment, Owen decides to let Hoskins weaponize the raptors in order to take down the giant I-Rex tearing apart the island. They were only used because there weren’t any guns available and it was an extreme emergency. So in the beginning of the film, when Hoskins pitched the idea to use dinosaurs in war, was he under the impression that the US Army was in the midst of some critical gun shortage? We spend just north of 600 billion dollars a year on national defense. Does he think that’s not enough to buy guns, so we have to throw pissed off, leathery ostriches at the bad guys?

Pictured: Not enough guns, apparently.

OK, so the entire battle strategy can’t be placed on the shoulders of these animals, but maybe they can be used to fight alongside soldiers. Man and beast, fighting side by side for the greater good. After all, dogs are sometimes used by the military for various purposes. But let’s compare dogs and dinosaurs, based on what we’ve seen in the movies. They both run fast and have sharp teeth. Dinosaurs are probably a bit more deadly, though. Dogs can breed and are fairly easy to maintain. Raptors have to be grown in a lab and cost millions of dollars to generate. Dogs can be trained to follow any command someone gives it and are extremely loyal. Raptors, on the other hand...

LOYALTY!!!

For those of you who haven't seen the movie, let me spoil a little bit of it. The raptors start out somewhat well trained and listening to Chris Pratt. Later on, they turn against the humans, and finally they end up helping Chris Pratt fight the giant I-Rex. How can we trust these dinosaurs to not do the same exact thing to our soldiers? A raptor could be alongside a soldier he's been with for years, then out of nowhere snap and realize "Wait, I haven't killed anything in a few minutes", and tear him apart.

So can we trust raptors in the military? No. Are they better than dogs, guns or drones? Obviously not. Is Chris Pratt awesome? Of course he is. Should Vic Hoskins have been trusted with the island's security in the first place? Hell no.