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

211–220 of 361 posts

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

#211

Post by cscurmudgeon »

glesica wrote: post #198
cscurmudgeon wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

It's a simple economic analysis. People tend (this word is important) to follow their incentives. If a person on welfare faces a high effective marginal tax when they start working (due to paying taxes plus losing benefits) they will not start working. If a CEO is compensated exclusively based on short-term share price, they will ramp up the share price even if they have to hurt the company to do it. We have seen mou…

Arguments like this are logically wrong. I am glad you are not a judge in real life (hint: why is racial profiling wrong?)

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

#212

Post by foobarqux »

rescripting wrote: post #173
mikeash wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would your answer be if the "targets", instead of mysterious and scary terrorists in foreign lands, were regular boring murderers living in the US?

And not regular boring tried-and-convicted murderers, but suspected murderers who have no trial or recourse.

More like those who use persuasive hate speech.

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

#213

Post by thebiglebrewski »

Ok, although I fundamentally tend to disagree with much of American military policy - if there were people on that bus who had ties to Al Qaeda and american intelligence knew this...and those people were to cause further destruction if they weren't killed...then I just don't know.

I kind of imagine this like all of those movies about drug cartels where these incredibly rich families are leading semi-normal lives and then during a normal family event like a wedding, are attacked by the rival drug cartel. It sucks and looks really bad, but if you got involved in something illegal like Al Qaeda or the drug trade on a massive scale...didn't you kind of bring it on yourself?

Either way, more evidence needs to be shown for these kinds of attacks and why they are necessary?

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

#214

Post by crbnw00ts »

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.)

> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

For how many years were people dismissed as nutjobs and "conspiracy theorists" when they talked about NSA spying? Now we know it was all true. Would you like to make a bet as to whether or not the US military-industrial complex acts in its own self-interest when comes to the "War on Terror"? When it comes down to it, there is nothing particularly "extraordinary" about these claims.

> You have made these accusations without any evidence.

The evidence is circumstantial and based on past behavior patterns of the US government. Read "Decent Interval" and its follow-up "Irreparable Harm" by Frank Snepp, or "State of War" by James Risen (for something more recent) to get started on this history. Again, there is nothing "extraordinary" about the previous poster's claims.

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

#215

Post by mattlutze »

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…

I will continue to refuse to believe American military personnel choose to strike otherwise-collateral civilian targets.

You're talking about moral humans, here. Our soldiers/airmen/marines/sailors are not soulless automatons, nor are officers that develop strategy and provide direction. Nor would I consider their pay to be either incentive or motivation.

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

#216

Post by drzaiusapelord »

roel_v wrote: post #189
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then the military can call in the civilian authorities if its not a military matter and they can use whatever methods they deem appropriate. This isn't some kind of wonderful humanitarian gesture by the US military, its just proper role separation. If the shit hits the fan, its deadly force. You don't roll out soldiers for fun. They're trained to kill, not be cops.

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

#217

Post by RyanZAG »

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.)

Blowing up a wedding is not extraordinary? 'Not taking sides' doesn't cut it - you're either doing your bit to end drone strikes like these, or you are morally bankrupt. There is no fence sitting when civilians are being blown up.

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

#218

Post by kitsune_ »

mikeash wrote: post #141
kitsune_ wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suggest googling F117 and Serbia.

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

#219

Post by foobarqux »

mikeash wrote: post #103
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?

Cheaper, no risk to personnel, personnel don't need to leave the country and families, less public opposition in general means that drone strikes are far more likely to be used compared with conventional attacks even though logically there isn't much of an ethical difference (except for a breach of Geneva conventions by having drone operators stay in civilian areas) given that a strike occurs.

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

#220

Post by dragonwriter »

barrkel wrote: post #203
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.

Killing innocent people at weddings does far more to create people who want to destroy the US than it does to reduce their numbers. Just think about it for a few seconds. Nothing short of complete genocide would be an effective actual implementation of this "justification". FWIW, the correct response to terrorism is to do nothing militarily, and treat it as a crime problem with an intelligence aspect nationally. Peop…

> Killing innocent people at weddings does far more to create people who want to destroy the US than it does to reduce their numbers.

Its hard to have a permanent war if you actually keep reducing the number of enemies.

Post reply on HN