If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by bluedino » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 2:54 PM UTC

sethbannon wrote: post #12

The way America is conducting the war on terror is both self-defeating and morally repugnant.

It's very easy to not agree with the way the US government handles these sort of things, but you have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not doing this for shits and giggles.

It might seem nationalistic to some but it reminds me of a quote from "A Few Good Men" -

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

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

#82

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 2:55 PM UTC

ck2 wrote: post #60

I think it is time for a world-wide ban on armed drones, period. Just like we have international treaties for other horrible things like mustard gas. Do all the reconnaissance you can get away with. But I don't want a tired, overworked, morally disconnected 20-something sitting in a trailer somewhere in the US, pulling a trigger to kill unquantifiable targets anywhere in the world. Or any other country doing it to an…

[deleted]

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

#83

Post by ars_technician » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 2:55 PM UTC

ck2 wrote: post #60

I think it is time for a world-wide ban on armed drones, period. Just like we have international treaties for other horrible things like mustard gas. Do all the reconnaissance you can get away with. But I don't want a tired, overworked, morally disconnected 20-something sitting in a trailer somewhere in the US, pulling a trigger to kill unquantifiable targets anywhere in the world. Or any other country doing it to an…

Why does it matter where the operator is? How about a ban on killing unquantifiable targets?

Modern fighter pilots can be just as overworked and have about the same risk of dying from being shot at.

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

#84

Post by alexeisadeski3 » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 2:55 PM UTC

sethbannon wrote: post #12

The way America is conducting the war on terror is both self-defeating and morally repugnant.

Not a whole lot of choice - you want the US to just let the targets run around? Send a strike team in each time? Drop a real bomb or cruise missile (even more civilian casualties - those weapons are larger)?

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

#85

Post by rdtsc » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 2:55 PM UTC

sethbannon wrote: post #12

The way America is conducting the war on terror is both self-defeating and morally repugnant.

It is profitable.

If terrorists disappeared tomorrow. Let's say we use our surgical strike weapons to target every cell every member, and in one hour they are gone. What would happen? Billions of dollars disappear from the pockets of everyone in the chain. Military contractors, drone maintenance, promotions, bonuses, career advancements, no more completed missions, medals, no job to go to.

So the direct financial and career incentive for everyone in the chain is to always make sure there is a stream of new terrorists, new cells, new intelligence chatter about "the Great Satan". And that is indirectly accomplished by indiscriminately bombing civilians. Everyone who is involved in picking the target and knows it is a funeral, will know civilians will die. I can't help but think they also know it is job insurance as well. They would be stupid not to.

American public via media has been tested enough during releases of so many atrocities, torture tapes, lies, monitoring that by now, I think they've built an accurate model of how much outrage will be generated and how much will actually threaten future operations, funding, reelection and so on (so far not much).

The bottom line, I don't even know and 100% believe them when they say these are all "mistakes". The incentives and the motivation, especially in the long term, is for them not to really care if civilians get bombed.

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

#86

Post by waxjar » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 2:55 PM UTC

zacinbusiness wrote: post #37

waxjar wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would that message be? "We are barbaric so you better watch out"?

No, the message is "This is how much we treat innocent civilians who have done nothing wrong, so stop to think about how we treat people that we actually dislike." It's nothing more than a form of terrorism, primarily against the American people.

I'm either misunderstanding you or you haven't read the article at all.

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

#87

Post by throwaway2048 » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 2:55 PM UTC

bluedino wrote: post #81

sethbannon wrote: post #12

The way America is conducting the war on terror is both self-defeating and morally repugnant.

It's very easy to not agree with the way the US government handles these sort of things, but you have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not doing this for shits and giggles. It might seem nationalistic to some but it reminds me of a quote from "A Few Good Men" - Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I h…

saves whose lives, and why should a few of "our side" be more valuable than many of the "bad guys" (which happen to include entire families including innocent women and children)?

It should be noted as well that the entire premise of the film wasn't "the ends justify the means" but rather the exact opposite. People can do great evil while believing that every action they take is fundamentally correct and for some kind of nebulous greater good.

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

#88

Post by golergka » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 2:56 PM UTC

salient wrote: post #70

golergka wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 p…

Look at it this way: it makes killing people with targeted missiles that much cheaper, which means they will want to do more of it, not just to "important targets", but to "associated targets", too. It's basically the NSA equivalent of mass spying. If spying becomes so cheap that they can just do it to everyone, then they're thinking "why not"? Same with drone striking. If it ends up costing them only like $10,000 pe…

> it makes killing people with targeted missiles that much cheaper

Killing people is already really cheap. What's not cheap is deciding _not_ to kill them on the battlefield, given incomplete information. Drones are helping with information and making _not_ killing people cheaper.

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

#89

Post by alexeisadeski3 » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 2:56 PM UTC

Jtsummers wrote: post #74

golergka wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 p…

Neither the pilot of a fighter/bomber or a drone gets to decide on the targets. They're given orders from above based on the intel provided to the commanders. So the issue isn't itchy trigger finger of the pilot, but itchy trigger finger of the commanders. The commanders have demonstrated over the last decade a willingness to send drones into situations they would not send fighters/bombers. There are few instances of…

The US used to send aircraft straight over the USSR!

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

#90

Post by MereInterest » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 2:57 PM UTC

throwaway2048 wrote: post #46

zacinbusiness wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Suppose I ask you how you feel about murdering babies. Then I ask you how you feel about terminating fetuses. The way that I phrase the question is going to influence how you respond. There is a difference between "job creators", "business owners", and "fat cats", even though each of them refers to the same thing.

Words are important, and language frames every issue. "Drones" as opposed to "unmanned aircraft" or "unmanned assault aircraft" is a huge difference in perception.