That's the main problem with American foreign policy. Win-Lose proposition is not scalable in globalized internet world.
CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones'
31–40 of 43 posts
Re: CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones'
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a great piece whose identifying information I'm blanking on that explained how we stumbled into drone warfare. Basically, we tried doing snatch & grabs with commando teams for a while, and that kept generating one negative externality we weren't willing to tolerate. Illegal acts? No. Media pressure? No. Collateral damage? No. Diplomatic reprecussions? No. Prisoners. Prisoners are a real handful. What are ou…
Interesting anecdote: up until WWII or so, American commanders had little problem dealing with enemy noncombatants on the battlefield. There was a brief trial followed by an execution. Over time, the whole trial and such got to be counter-productive for the military, all that publicity and such. Warfare became much more a PR game. So commanders started emphasizing killing over capturing. This trend has nothing to do…
Good movie dealing with this in the Boer War: Breaker Morant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaker_Morant_%28film%29)
Re: CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones'
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
American commanders had little problem dealing with enemy noncombatants on the battlefield. Did you mean combatants? Typically noncombatants would refer to medical personnel, chaplains, etc. It'd be interesting to know if people like this were routinely tried and executed.
No, a chaplain in a military uniform is a combatant as far as the Geneva Convention is concerned, and must be treated as a POW. The term more recently used was "unlawful combatant".
Though the Geneva Conventions do not state whether chaplains may bear arms, they specify (Protocol I, 8 June 1977, Art 43.2) that chaplains are noncombatants. In recent years both the UK and US have required chaplains, but not medical personnel, to be unarmed. Other nations, notably Norway, Denmark and Sweden, make it an issue of individual conscience. Captured chaplains are not considered Prisoners of War (Third Convention, 12 August 1949, Chapter IV Art 33) and must be returned to their home nation unless retained to minister to prisoners of war.
Re: CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones'
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
This whole conversation is way off-topic but the operations happen with the partnership of the Pakistani government (so the bit about "...in a country we're not at war with" is irrelevant) against military targets who are not fighting under any nation's flag. The days of two armies lining up at opposite ends of a battle-field are gone.
> This whole conversation is way off-topic. I think not when software is used to kill people. I refuse to sanitize and rationalize that fact away and happily discuss UAV realtime software development patterns.
I think not when software is used to kill people.
This is not new. Software is also in most components of military weapons and vehicles: in missiles, tanks, submarines, torpedoes, artillery, helicopters and fighter jets, etc. What's different about UAVs?
Re: CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones'
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, a chaplain in a military uniform is a combatant as far as the Geneva Convention is concerned, and must be treated as a POW. The term more recently used was "unlawful combatant".
Though the Geneva Conventions do not state whether chaplains may bear arms, they specify (Protocol I, 8 June 1977, Art 43.2) that chaplains are noncombatants. In recent years both the UK and US have required chaplains, but not medical personnel, to be unarmed. Other nations, notably Norway, Denmark and Sweden, make it an issue of individual conscience. Captured chaplains are not considered Prisoners of War (Third Con…
I stand corrected :-)
But the point still stands - a chaplain in uniform on the battlefield wouldn't be tried and executed at a drumhead.
Re: CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones'
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a great piece whose identifying information I'm blanking on that explained how we stumbled into drone warfare. Basically, we tried doing snatch & grabs with commando teams for a while, and that kept generating one negative externality we weren't willing to tolerate. Illegal acts? No. Media pressure? No. Collateral damage? No. Diplomatic reprecussions? No. Prisoners. Prisoners are a real handful. What are ou…
> You know what has never once happened as a result of a Predator drone strike? A live prisoner in US custody. That makes a lot of sense. It is the optimal way of disposing of people on hidden black lists. The other upside for them -- Americans don't put their lives in danger, unless we consider driving to Langley in DC traffic every day as "danger". So they never have to deal with that PR aspect of the operation.
That is entirely irrelevent.
Dropping a bomb from a plane or a UAV is basically the same thing in these wars. The enemies have no weapons capable of shooting down our fighters. Have we lost a single plane to enemy SAMs in either Iraq or Afghanistan? We've certainly lost some helicopters, but there really is no difference between an F/18 and a Predator.
If anything the UAV allows for more accuracy and a better view of the aftermath, the pilot of a manned plane is trying to get in and get out, the pilots of a UAV are watching before, during, and after the strike. The pilot of a manned fighter sees less of the actual attack and is even further removed.
The same can be said for ships at sea firing Tomahawks, and before that artillery. Once you get beyond the face to face fighting of infantry it just becomes more and more abstract until we are here today where the guys pulling the trigger are 3,000 miles away.
Re: CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones'
#37> "They want to kill people with my software that doesn't work" Let's see, we assassinate people without any trial, in a country we are not even at war with, and the obvious problem is that the software is a little buggy. What is "buggy" here is the whole assassination system. When Bush wanted to dispatch special ops around the world to assassinate "terrorists", everyone was up and arms about it, When Obama does the…
This is the problem with success, it has many different meanings and some of then are evil. When using technology to kill people it should be carefully studied what is the meaning of success.
Re: CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones'
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting anecdote: up until WWII or so, American commanders had little problem dealing with enemy noncombatants on the battlefield. There was a brief trial followed by an execution. Over time, the whole trial and such got to be counter-productive for the military, all that publicity and such. Warfare became much more a PR game. So commanders started emphasizing killing over capturing. This trend has nothing to do…
American commanders had little problem dealing with enemy noncombatants on the battlefield. Did you mean combatants? Typically noncombatants would refer to medical personnel, chaplains, etc. It'd be interesting to know if people like this were routinely tried and executed.
I suspect he means "spies and saboteurs" (to borrow the language of geneva), i.e. combatants who don't display a distinctive sign recognizable at a distance and openly carry weapons.
(The rationale: if one army can't tell the difference between civilians and soldiers, it puts civilians at greater risk. Thus, Geneva creates an incentive for not doing this.)
Re: CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones'
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You know what has never once happened as a result of a Predator drone strike? A live prisoner in US custody. That makes a lot of sense. It is the optimal way of disposing of people on hidden black lists. The other upside for them -- Americans don't put their lives in danger, unless we consider driving to Langley in DC traffic every day as "danger". So they never have to deal with that PR aspect of the operation.
That is entirely irrelevent. Dropping a bomb from a plane or a UAV is basically the same thing in these wars. The enemies have no weapons capable of shooting down our fighters. Have we lost a single plane to enemy SAMs in either Iraq or Afghanistan? We've certainly lost some helicopters, but there really is no difference between an F/18 and a Predator. If anything the UAV allows for more accuracy and a better view of…
I don't disagree with what you said, but the real abstraction is the ability to shoot and not be shot at.
Even with "beyond the horizon" battles, two ships at sea are hitting each other. The difference between dying from a shell fired 20 miles away or one fired 1/2 mile away is nonexistent.
Re: CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones'
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good point. The only problem is the Netezza appliance is definitely not used by drones, for controlling drones, or anything directly related to their operations. The Register headline (and the many copies) are typically hyperbolic.
The software is used to determine target locations,which are then fed to the drones for execution. I'd say it's pretty damm relevant when someone decides to hack something up real quick and says they don't mind using it knowing that it's giving erroneous data with several meter deviations. I bet you wouldn't find it hyperbolic if you were, let's say, 10 meters away from someone being located with that software.
Yes, it could be better, but in the grand scheme of things it's a major improvement over what came before. Less than a century ago, in WWII, bombers often missed their target by miles. Miles. We are orders of magnitude more accurate, leading to smaller amounts of explosive used, and fewer people being killed by accident.
No, it's never good when an unintended person is killed, but let's keep things in perspective.