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

121–130 of 361 posts

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

#121

Post by knome »

hazz wrote: post #102
[deleted] wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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...

I was cast into doubt by the same comment. The United States military does not make use of even things like pepper spray as a non-lethal weapon specifically because of being a signatory of treaties against use of any chemical warfare.

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

#122

Post by walshemj »

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #29
gaius wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wholly different scenario, fighting a real war against a tech-equivalent enemy.

Millions of Japanese civilians were tech-equivalent?

yeah in 44/45 a b29 raid vs what ever the Japanese air force could cobble together is really equivalent.

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

#123

Post by codfrantic »

lmm wrote: post #51
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a question of "ease". Military pilots take orders; COs tell them how high to jump, and that's what they do. Either they follow orders or they are relieved of duty (and possibly face court martial). Some drones are operated by a division of the CIA and are out of military control, however. This is probably the most worrisome aspect of the program. However, as long as 99% of their targets are bad guys, America…

> Military pilots take orders; COs tell them how high to jump, and that's what they do. Either they follow orders or they are relieved of duty (and possibly face court martial). Even so, and despite all the training, some do refuse orders. They're also at least theoretically obliged to refuse illegal orders (i.e. war crimes), at least in my country.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18535330

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

#124

Post by jackgavigan »

lmm wrote: post #51
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a question of "ease". Military pilots take orders; COs tell them how high to jump, and that's what they do. Either they follow orders or they are relieved of duty (and possibly face court martial). Some drones are operated by a division of the CIA and are out of military control, however. This is probably the most worrisome aspect of the program. However, as long as 99% of their targets are bad guys, America…

> Military pilots take orders; COs tell them how high to jump, and that's what they do. Either they follow orders or they are relieved of duty (and possibly face court martial). Even so, and despite all the training, some do refuse orders. They're also at least theoretically obliged to refuse illegal orders (i.e. war crimes), at least in my country.

Different countries have different definitions of what constitutes a war crime, depending on what international treaties they are parties to. Bombing wedding parties would come under what is often referred to as the Principle of Proportionality, as laid out in Article 51 of Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions and Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The United States is not a party to either treaty.

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

#125

Post by scarmig »

pesenti wrote: post #108

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.

You make do nothing sound like it's a bad thing.

Is it really so terrible not to bomb wedding parties?

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

#127

Post by throwaway2048 »

ars_technician wrote: post #76
kevando wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Almost, but not quite. The difference would be that the US isn't killing civilians just for the sake of killing civilians to cause terror.

That is exactly what they are doing. Terrorism is all about relatively minor, cheap, covert strikes against somebody perceived as the enemy.

The USA wont kill everyone that opposes them with such a campaign, but the point is the same as "terrorism", to send a message of fear if you dare oppose us, or associate with people who oppose us, damn the "collateral damage".

Make no bones about it, this is exactly the same kind of asymmetrical warfare that the USA itself condemns as terrorism.

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

#128

Post by walshemj »

sethbannon wrote: post #12

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

Possibly the first but its not like the USA is using indiscriminate area bombing like they did in Vietnam or the British using poison gas pre ww2 in Iraq.

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

#129

Post by pekk »

wcummings wrote: post #65
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.

When we declare war on Yemen you'll be right. This is more akin to the bombings in Cambodia.

The use of manned bombers has occurred in "police actions" over and over

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

#130

Post by drzaiusapelord »

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…

Feel good nothings like this that ignore both the power and profit of the defense industry are hopelessly naive.

I also don't see how blowing away teenagers in an Afghan village who have no idea what 9/11 is, is some kind of macho statement against oppression. Pretty soon, if not already, we'll be killing young people born after 9/11. Not sure if this is the big win the GOP 'defense first' voter thinks it is. Sounds like yet another failure in policy, much like the profitable war on drugs.

When we give the nation state carte blanche on both a moral and budgetary level, expect nothing but endless abuses of power. There are 150,000 Iraqi graves that wouldn't have existed if Bush was honest. Lets not forget that. If there's a global bad guy in Nicholson's speech people should defend against, its probably the US military, and I say this as a US citizen.

Post reply on HN