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

101–110 of 361 posts

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

#101

Post by throwaway2048 »

MereInterest wrote: post #90
throwaway2048 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "unm…

Which is exactly my point of course, "drone strikes" has a certain, extremely negative connotation. Making a big fuss how they "arnt really drones you see, its just force projection" smells a lot like "enhanced interrogation" and other attempts to euphanise atrocities behind some neat, sterile sounding language.

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

#102

Post by hazz »

[deleted] wrote: post #82
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]

This piqued my interest. The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons, was signed by the United States on the same day it was opened, January 13th 1993 [1]. It came into force in 1997.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Chemical...

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

#103

Post by mikeash »

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…

I don't really understand the outrage over drones specifically. This constant bombing of foreign countries is terrible, but I don't understand why the "drones" part of it is also considered bad. Why is a tired, overworked, morally disconnected 20-something sitting in a trailer somewhere in the US worse than a tired, overworked, morally disconnected 20-something sitting in a cockpit of an F-16?

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

#104

Post by zacinbusiness »

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.

@Waxjar - I'm saying that these drone strikes are not accidental. That they did not kill innocent people by accident. And that the point of the U.S. drone fleet has got nothing to do with stopping terrorists and that, in fact, the very existence of the U.S. drone fleet is itself an act of terror because it exists for no real purpose other than to frighten people who make the U.S. government angry.

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

#105

Post by sophacles »

golergka wrote: post #50
Killah911 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

The thinking is it is easier to dissociate consequences when they are nothing but pixels. It become more of a video game than a reality when sitting in a safe gaming pod flying the drone. It isn't fully transformed to a game, but it is to an extent.

Compare internet forums vs f2f discussion - it is much easier to end up in a flamewar saying hurtful things on the internet when your opponents are faceless words on a screen than when it's a person sitting across from you.

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

#106

Post by Killah911 »

golergka wrote: post #54
Killah911 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Also, > If you've played MW3 doesn't have "civilians" as a game mechanic (unlike Counter-Strike or a lot of arcade shooting games, for example), so the comparison doesn't really work.

Very interesting point, one might argue that the soldier on the ground has more of a "justification" if civilians are killed than a drone, since in the former case the soldier's life was in potentially more danger.

When a robotic combat bot/UAV is used, it is significantly harder to justify civilian casualties as it then becomes a much more cold/calculated decision. Guess it then boils down to the "precision" that is available. I don't suppose a drone can take out a single occupant in a vehicle so it's minimum quantum attack size is an entire vehicle and hence the additional casualties.

This bot driven warfare is some scary ass technology with a huge potential for abuse. Even if a future UAVs could target a single individual, that type of technology would have any aspiring dictator salivating at the thought...

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

#107

Post by mikeash »

Shivetya wrote: post #35
badman_ting wrote: post #2

It's okay when we do it.

Lets be honest here, if Bush were doing this the press and every damn Democrat in Congress would be up in arms and demanding halts and immediate investigations. so a better title would be, If Bush were President we'd ground out fleet.

Really? My recollection of most of the Bush administration was that the Democrats were complete and total doormats for him. They basically laid out the red carpet for him to invade Iraq, which was far worse and far less justified than drone strikes.

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

#108

Post by pesenti »

I don't understand why commenters don't actually discuss Obama's argument. He has the following options:

- Do nothing

- Use drones

- Use conventional weapons which, he argues, would have more collateral damage

- Put troops on the ground and be perceived as an invader.

So either you should argue that these are not the options or you should argue that he did not pick the right one.

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

#109

Post by pavlov »

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…

It's very easy to not agree with the way the North Korean government handles many things, but you have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not doing it for shits and giggles. After all, they have been at war for over 60 years now. It must be obvious to any patriotic Korean that the danger posed by American imperialists who still occupy the southern half of the country is ever-present and growing. Someone must guard those walls.

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

#110

Post by frogpelt »

rdtsc wrote: post #85
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…

Let me guess, you think there's a cure for cancer but the doctors are withholding it and Exxon Mobil bought the patent for a combustion engine that would achieve 100+ mpg.

Any industry that is built on addressing problems that people naturally have is going to generate lots of revenue. It has been proven that people naturally fight with each other. People fight over race, religion, sports, politics, and territory. Nations do the same thing.

If you think it would end terrorism by killing all current terrorists and if you think it would even be possible, I think you're misguided.

Post reply on HN