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

141–150 of 361 posts

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

#141

Post by mikeash »

kitsune_ wrote: post #115
mikeash wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

As mentioned in other comments in this thread: From a political point of view, drones are much more attractive than traditional methods. You won't see the corpses of dead Americans being dragged through Mogadishu with drones. You won't see captured pilots being paraded in front of a camera with drones.

We won't see captured pilots being paraded in front of a camera with regular piloted aircraft either, not ones flown by the US against any likely current target.

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

#142

Post by blisterpeanuts »

viraptor wrote: post #52
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. Do you really think that the disconnection doesn't have an effect on some level? Whether it's the number of people signing up at all, being ready for a mission, or actually following orders? How many people would follow the order of shooting from a controlled plane to unsuspecting people in a convoy -vs- an order to take a knife a…

Undoubtedly the video game quality of the drone program abstracts the carnage and makes it easier for the operator to sleep at night.

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

#143

Post by kevando »

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.

I mean, yeah, that's what we're told. But the fact remains - drone strikes create terror. And on the other side, believing terrorist acts are simply to create terror is naive.

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

#144

Post by cscurmudgeon »

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…

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have made these accusations without any evidence. Be responsible and ethical and show us something real, if you have it. (note: I am not taking sides.)

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

#145

Post by blisterpeanuts »

weland wrote: post #112
bluedino wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 put it in terms of "Yeah, some civilian deaths are a necessary evil which we burden our conscience with. But we do it because we have to protect our civilians", but I think it's intellectually lazy. Because the next question that should inevitably spring up is ok, ok, but why the fuck would someone in Yemen want to kill US citizens? Once you start answering that question, the question of morality in…

Unfortunately, there are a lot of Al Qaeda type jihadists in Yemen who would very much like to kill U.S. citizens. Otherwise I'd agree with you that we shouldn't be there.

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

#146

Post by zacinbusiness »

pekk wrote: post #138
zacinbusiness wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@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.

Doesn't this definition make the existence of any military deterrent "an act of terror"?

I think it could, but I don't think so in this case. MAD, for instance, isn't an act of terror because it is only an existential threat. Most nuclear capable countries won't use their weapons because of MAD, and thus it actually provides a safety net.

No one, though, can really do anything about drone strikes. They just happen, seemingly at random, wherever we decide they should happen. And if we take out a civilian then we say "oops, these things happen" and so there are no repercussions, no one gets punished and it just keeps happening.

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

#147

Post by dragonwriter »

mistercow wrote: post #137
jackgavigan wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

Since when is the US not a party to the Geneva Conventions?

Protocol I and Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 are later agreements that added to the 1949 Conventions, the United States is not a party to either Protocol, though it is a party to all four of the 1949 Conventions.

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

#148

Post by MetaCosm »

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…

> It matters because it changes the fundamental nature of combat.

Said about literally EVERY SINGLE change in warfare over the centuries. I am talking all the way back to armor and catapults to gunpowder based munitions, the blitzkrieg, rockets, planes, bombs, and of course nuclear weapons.

The thing is -- it is absolutely true, but it is always true, and therefore meaningless.

Lets look at the Gulf War for example -- the US lost 113 soldiers to the enemy (an addition 35 to friendly fire)... they killed "at least" 20,000 -- some estimates go as high as 35,000+(and an additional 3,500+ civilians). The asymmetry of modern warfare is nothing new, pointing to drones as some line in the sand is just, IMHO, silliness.

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

#149

Post by Kliment »

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.

Sure, and those who refuse get replaced by new ones who won't. Doesn't take long to "fix" that "problem".

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

#150

Post by bluecalm »

frogpelt wrote: post #110
rdtsc wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Na…

It doesn't matter what he or you think is likely happening right now. The fact is there is a conflict of incentives and in such situations people act according to the ones the closest to their personal ones. We can't expect people to be heroes against their own personal interest.

It won't change until people in the chain have incentives to avoid war.

Now let's think how to accomplish it: maybe there should be huge tax on profits for military contractors in the time when operations are going ? Maybe private for-profit military contractors have to go in the first place ? Maybe we shouldn't pay them for every piece of equipment but only for time spent working ?

As to people in the field, there are some ideas as well like freezing all bonuses during the military operations and such. The thing is it has to be profitable for individuals involved to seek peace not war. The war machine is never going to stop otherwise. The balance should be such that once high command in charge feel it's necessary to start military operations they should meet at least some resistance from rest of the chain not "fuck yeah sir!" as it is now.

Post reply on HN