Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 361 posts

Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet

#41

Post by iaskwhy »

wil421 wrote: post #9
k-mcgrady wrote: post #5

Not all that surpising. As was made clear during the Snowden leaks the USG doesn't consider human beings who aren't US citizens to have the same rights as Americans.

This is what I find the most troubling. I used to think the US was trying to still spread democracy worldwide but apparently internally they feel if you are foreign that means there arent any laws as to what we can and cant do.

That's something important for you to realise. The next step is to understand that the US government didn't change much lately meaning that idea you had in your mind was never true since at least the end of the second world war. Then you get to wonder how you got to believe that in the first place.

Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet

#43

Post by coldtea »

josefresco wrote: post #3

Weddings and funerals are actually targeted specifically because those events are two that even highly sought-after targets attend despite the dangers. Also, the subsequent funerals for those killed at the targeted wedding would then be targeted as well. You can either agree or disagree, but if you feel the target is accurate based on your intelligence the venue doesn't really matter IMHO. Civilians will be killed no…

>Weddings and funerals are actually targeted specifically because those events are two that even highly sought-after targets attend despite the dangers.

Or that's the BS excuse they say to support their actions.

Not to mention, that's not an excuse in the first place. Only someone brainwashed by constant BS spin would accept that.

If those "suspected targets" (hit in a sovereign country which is not at war with anyone, without due process and UN approval, not given a chance to surrender, and not doing anything at that specific time) gathered at kindergardens would it be OK to hit there? How are weddings any different?

Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet

#44

Post by tootie »

gaius wrote: post #13
forktheif wrote: post #10

It continues to baffle me why the fact they're drones matter in the slightest. They're not autonomous, they're flown by pilots who just happen to not be sitting in the aircraft they're flying. Manned aircraft have killed huge groups of innocent civilians more than once, but apparently that's fine because the pilot was sitting in the aircraft.

It is probably easier to get pilots to bomb civilians with a Playstation controller in what looks and feels like a video game, than an actual person present.

That would imply we people have trouble killing on a battlefield which would seem to be patently false.

Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet

#45

Post by threeseed »

Killah911 wrote: post #28
forktheif wrote: post #10

It continues to baffle me why the fact they're drones matter in the slightest. They're not autonomous, they're flown by pilots who just happen to not be sitting in the aircraft they're flying. Manned aircraft have killed huge groups of innocent civilians more than once, but apparently that's fine because the pilot was sitting in the aircraft.

It matters because it changes the fundamental nature of combat. If a pilot is in the plane you're risking an American life, not to mention a very expensive piece of equipment with numerous safety features etc. Now take away the risk to American life and lower the cost of the attack significantly, and viola, you've got a much itchier trigger finger now. If you've played MW3, which would you rather do, use the drone to…

Quite sure that the person who makes the decision whether to deploy air to ground weaponry isn't the one sitting in the cockpit.

Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet

#46

Post by throwaway2048 »

zacinbusiness wrote: post #23
forktheif wrote: post #10

It continues to baffle me why the fact they're drones matter in the slightest. They're not autonomous, they're flown by pilots who just happen to not be sitting in the aircraft they're flying. Manned aircraft have killed huge groups of innocent civilians more than once, but apparently that's fine because the pilot was sitting in the aircraft.

That's a really good point, and I think that it come in the name "drone." These aircraft are NOT "drones." They do not perform menial labor and they are not "thoughtless." They do not perform automated attacks. These are units of force projection that the U.S. military uses as part of a psychological warfare campaign against citizens that it deems to be a threat (or, in other words, pretty much the entire planet).

I'm glad we can argue semantics while the world burns.

Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet

#47

Post by kevando »

forktheif wrote: post #10

It continues to baffle me why the fact they're drones matter in the slightest. They're not autonomous, they're flown by pilots who just happen to not be sitting in the aircraft they're flying. Manned aircraft have killed huge groups of innocent civilians more than once, but apparently that's fine because the pilot was sitting in the aircraft.

This is an interesting point... I think it matters - possibly for a different reason. If you imagine from the ground: a terrorist car bomb VS a drone strike, they're virtually indistinguishable. Both are explosions without warning by the 'enemy.' It's almost a joke that people condemn terrorist acts and respond in kind.

Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet

#48

Post by wtvanhest »

Killah911 wrote: post #28
forktheif wrote: post #10

It continues to baffle me why the fact they're drones matter in the slightest. They're not autonomous, they're flown by pilots who just happen to not be sitting in the aircraft they're flying. Manned aircraft have killed huge groups of innocent civilians more than once, but apparently that's fine because the pilot was sitting in the aircraft.

It matters because it changes the fundamental nature of combat. If a pilot is in the plane you're risking an American life, not to mention a very expensive piece of equipment with numerous safety features etc. Now take away the risk to American life and lower the cost of the attack significantly, and viola, you've got a much itchier trigger finger now. If you've played MW3, which would you rather do, use the drone to…

In fairness, US owned and piloted planes are very, very, very unlikely to be shot down. There is probably more risk of a crash landing on an aircraft carrier than any of those countries shooting one down. There is essentially no American Life risk.

Someone should have seen this coming a long time ago and called them multistage-guided-missiles or some other name.

The term 'Drone' is basically used as link bait and confuses the argument... If we replace 'drone' with 'stealth bomber', is it now OK to bomb a wedding?

Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet

#49

Post by rikacomet »

Terrorism is a idea, it cannot be killed with bullets or drones.

The Terrorist we know today are a pretty much related to those people who were supported by American Intelligence agencies in the mid70-80s, against the soviet. The "Barbarians" among those folk were given advanced weapons, that America possessed, those weapons might be outdated, and America may have a upper hand, but that is only a matter of time. Sadly, this has became a chicken and egg problem.

The circle of REVENGE is a continuous one, you kill more people innocent or not, you sprout a new rebellion. They will eventually hurt you back, today or tomorrow. and the process will continue.. presidents, prime ministers would come and go by.

The only way to stop this is to actually STOP. Stop interference in ways like espoinage, drone strikes, killing of "Suspected" militants.. never given any right to appear before court.. everything. The root problem is the so called intelligence that does more than just collect information about "suspected" enemies.

Someone has to rise up and stop it. for both sides, perhaps it escape us humans sometimes, the very fact "those who are hurt are the ones who can forgive or take revenge." Thats about there it is to this.

Really sad to hear about that nameless bride/groom & family. May they R.I.P.

Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet

#50

Post by golergka »

Killah911 wrote: post #28
forktheif wrote: post #10

It continues to baffle me why the fact they're drones matter in the slightest. They're not autonomous, they're flown by pilots who just happen to not be sitting in the aircraft they're flying. Manned aircraft have killed huge groups of innocent civilians more than once, but apparently that's fine because the pilot was sitting in the aircraft.

It matters because it changes the fundamental nature of combat. If a pilot is in the plane you're risking an American life, not to mention a very expensive piece of equipment with numerous safety features etc. Now take away the risk to American life and lower the cost of the attack significantly, and viola, you've got a much itchier trigger finger now. If you've played MW3, which would you rather do, use the drone to…

> you've got a much itchier trigger finger now

I doubt that. It would seem that a pilot sitting in a cockpit would be a lot more trigger-happy.

Both pilots can make two types of mistake: don't recognize an enemy for what he is, or do the same thing with a civilian. If plane pilot mistakes an enemy for something else and said enemy succeeds in his efforts, the pilot will lose his place and may be his life. The drone pilot, on the other hand, will only lose the drone, which is also cheaper then a plane. But the cost of the other mistake is the same for the both of them.

So, it seems that plane pilot has actually much more reason to shoot on targets he's not sure about.

Post reply on HN