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

181–190 of 361 posts

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

#181

Post by refurb »

guptaneil wrote: post #178
refurb wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to agree. Someone out there benefits from every single bad thing that happens out there: securities fraud, child abuse, cancer, money laundering, murder, etc, etc. Using the same logic, nothing should ever get better because those who benefit from "bad things" will never allow them to be stopped.

The difference is, in the OP's argument, the people whose job it is to stop these bad things are also the ones who are benefitting from it. Normally, it is the police's job to stop child abuse. However, if the police force happens to be running the child abuse ring, they are not going to do anything to stop it themselves. In such a situation, there is no incentive for these things to stop. (Note: I'm not convinced wa…

Sure it still work... let's look at my list:

securities fraud - all those jobs at the SEC would disappear if they ended securities fraud, therefore they must not really want to stop it

child abuse - the cops, social workers and judges would lose their jobs if child abuse stopped, therefore they must not really want to stop it

cancer - oncologists would have no job if cancer was cured, therefore they must not really want to stop it

money laundering - DOJ would lose their jobs if there was no money laundering, therefore they must not really want to stop it

murder - cops would lose their jobs if there was no murder, therefore they must not really want to stop it

And you can't say those people I noted above are not a part of the power structure...

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

#182

Post by ape4 »

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.

How about subdrones. The existing drones launch small microdrones which fly down to a possible target and get a better look. Is there a bride, etc?

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

#183

Post by josefresco »

gaius wrote: post #6
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…

Yes. Have you forgotten that we are supposed to be the good guys?

We (speaking as a US citizen) are not the good guys any more than we're the bad guys, we're just guys doing our best to protect the interests of the country as a whole. Just as one day the Japanese were the bad guys and are now one of our closest ally's, morality and the high ground change as time and circumstances change.

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

#184

Post by roel_v »

sophacles wrote: post #105
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…

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 sc…

Look, I don't have a position in this discussion, but your argument is prototypical for much of the others in this thread and it just seems so flimsy. Here is another totally made up argument just the other way around: for a UAV pilot, and their commanders, the 'kill order' is much more rational. Soldiers get to make decisions that are not influenced by the hate against the person who 2 minutes ago shot their buddy next to them in the head. Nanking massacre? Would never happen with drone pilots.

See? I'm not saying that argument is right. It is only just as neat, simple and (probably) wrong as the 'killing through a joystick causes more casualties because it dehumanzes the process' argument.

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

#185

Post by josefresco »

mattgibson wrote: post #15
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…

If Bin Laden had been attending a wedding, then ground troops would have been sent in, who would have made sure they killed him and left unarmed civilians alone. We know this, because that's what actually happened when they found him. The question is why is this not being done in the same way in other cases, given that random killings of civilians are perhaps the best terrorist recruitment tool ever devised.

That's what happened the last time we found him (we tried airstrikes before) and it wasn't because we were worried about killing civilians, it's because we needed the job done, verified, more-so than your average middle-ranking terrorist.

Also, not an easy task to fly a Navy SEAL team around the world constantly to do operations like this. Not only does it risk their lives, but sometimes it's not even possible to get there physically or in enough time.

Also, somehow the terrorist were able to recruit before the US and it's allies "retaliated" with drone strikes. Sort of a chicken-and-egg problem but it would be crazy to blame terrorism on the killing of civilians that only took place.. because of actions of the terrorists.

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

#186

Post by josefresco »

officemonkey wrote: post #134
mattgibson wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Bin Laden had been attending a wedding, then ground troops would have been sent in, who would have made sure they killed him and left unarmed civilians alone. We know this, because that's what actually happened when they found him. The question is why is this not being done in the same way in other cases, given that random killings of civilians are perhaps the best terrorist recruitment tool ever devised.

Because a Seal team is worth the risk of capturing bin Laden. A Seal team is not worth the risk of raiding some wedding.

Exactly. High value target uses high value assets.

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

#187

Post by bunderbunder »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #144
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…

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.)

There's really nothing extraordinary here; it's just boring old business-as-usual American politics.

Consider reactions to the idea that we cancel the Joint Strike Fighter program. Long story short, every politician who had a contractor working on the project in his constituency started making noise about all the jobs that would be lost if we were to shut down the program. No secret conspiracy; that was an open debate that happened in the public sector, and which many Americans were talking about over dinner.

Even the actual influencing of decisions to engage in hostilities is so everyday as to be unremarkable. For example, the big defense contractors spent a whole lot of money lobbying members of Congress to convince them that the 2009 Afghanisatan surge was a good idea. I think some wonks wrote columns about it in Foreign Policy magazine, but otherwise the news was barely even noticed.

As for how that leads to a sort of "continuous warfare" policy where we're always on the lookout for new enemies. . . I think that just emerges. If you've spending billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer money on some new toy, then at some point someone's going to start asking why. And of course if your job is tied to a project, the very last thing you're going to say is, "No reason, actually this is a pretty silly lark if you ask me." So folks start coming up with hypothetical adversaries, and starts inventing war games and conducting exercises built around these hypotheses. And things just sort of roll along from there.

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

#188

Post by quantumpotato_ »

csmuk wrote: post #140
frogpelt wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I worked for defence companies in the past. There are no morals and ethics. Just profit and plunder. The parent of your post is spot on.

"I worked for war companies in the past"

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

#189

Post by roel_v »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #160
knome wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pepper spray is useless in a combat situation. Wind and other factors mean that it could benefit your enemy more than you (same with other chemical weapons). Also, why bother when we have flash-bang grenades, sonic weapons, and white phosphorous. Not to mention, in war deadly force is authorized under even the most trivial of circumstances. Why pepper spray a guy and take a risk when you can shoot him and not take a…

If civilian police uses mace for small-scale arrests during riots, MP's could do the same thing for example during protests around embassies in non-war-but-dangerous circumstances. Except they don't.

I don't think the GP was suggesting dropping pepper gas bombs, or using mace cannons while storming an enemy outpost.

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

#190

Post by josefresco »

EliRivers wrote: post #20
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…

Blackstone's formulation is one of the most important parts of English and American common law. At the point where it becomes acceptable and legal to knowingly murder innocent people in order to punish the guilty, all legitimacy is forfeit. This, of course, has already happened.

If only our enemies operated on the same "presumption of innocence" as we (the US) claim to.
Post reply on HN