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

261–270 of 361 posts

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

#261

Post by dopamean »

khafra wrote: post #192
dopamean wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The business of considering all military-age males as combatants is really not all that surprising to me. I live in New York and here, in some neighborhoods, the police consider all minority males 14-40 (I really have no idea of the top end) to be suspected criminals worthy of a random search while simply walking down the street. This is the way we treat people. We deem one group of people to be a threat and they imm…

> We deem one group of people to be a threat A minority male between 14 and 40 is more likely to mug someone than a 70 year old caucasian woman; that's not something made up by racist conservatives. But if there's such a thing as rights , they must apply even to higher-threat demographics. One interesting exercise is thinking about base rates of mugging, and likelihood ratios for mugging, and discerning your own pers…

I didn't call anyone a racist conservative. Also, I dont have a breaking point for "4th amendment suspension" in the case of people not suspected of a crime walking on a public street.

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

#262

Post by willvarfar »

mseebach wrote: post #226
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…

> Military contractors, drone maintenance, promotions, bonuses, career advancements, no more completed missions, medals, no job to go to. You forgot the one group of people who could actually stop this, literally overnight: Politicians.

Aren't they in the pocket, though?

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

#263

Post by d23 »

RyanZAG wrote: post #237
nickff wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civilians are blown up in every war, drones did not create this problem, and eliminating UAVs will not end it. If you want people to be "doing your bit to end drone strikes", you should consider that the probable counter-factual is not an end to non-combatant (civilian) deaths; civilian mortality may increase, decrease, or stay the same, depending on what tactics are chosen to replace drones.

Sorry - by drone strikes I was actually incorrectly implying the broader picture. I mean end attacks on civilians in countries you are not even at war with. There really is no moral justification for blowing these people up. Even if they were terrorists, there is no way they could have done as much damage as the slaughter of a whole wedding. The 'cure' is far worse than the illness.

> Even if they were terrorists, there is no way they could have done as much damage as the slaughter of a whole wedding.

Erm, why? You're saying terrorists can't kill 14 people?

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

#265

Post by daigoba66 »

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'm not necessarily disagreeing with the concept of banning armed droned, but I don't think the operators actually get to pick and choose the targets. I don't think the operators have much discretion at all. Those orders, especially orders to fire, likely come from a commanding officer. The same probably applies to fighter and bomber pilots too, though they may have more discretion when it comes to defending the aircraft.

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

#266

Post by diydsp »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #253
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…

You realize that the fiction of a coherent "Military Industrial Complex" has been debunked several times right? One by the General Accounting Office showed that military contractors actually had higher profits in peacetime than wartime because they got money for 'research' and didn't have to actually produce any product.

It doesn't require coherent, self-identification to exist.

It doesn't need to make more profits during wartime than in peacetime to exist.

It only needs to have multiple actors whose interests align to produce more military funding and hardware than is needed to defend the nation.

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

#267

Post by typon »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #253
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…

You realize that the fiction of a coherent "Military Industrial Complex" has been debunked several times right? One by the General Accounting Office showed that military contractors actually had higher profits in peacetime than wartime because they got money for 'research' and didn't have to actually produce any product.

That sounds extremely unlikely. Most research projects don't get hundreds of millions of dollars of funding, while a single F-22 costs upwards of $150 million.

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

#268

Post by wutbrodo »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #253
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…

You realize that the fiction of a coherent "Military Industrial Complex" has been debunked several times right? One by the General Accounting Office showed that military contractors actually had higher profits in peacetime than wartime because they got money for 'research' and didn't have to actually produce any product.

Not that I necessarily buy in to the idea of "a coherent Military-Industrial Complex", but this doesn't really debunk much. It seems to me that peacetime profits for military contractors are dependent on the assumption that there's going to be wartime usage of the research they're doing in the short- to medium-term. Surely if we went a significant period without any military engagements, there would be far less of a push to fund the research of military contractors (I know that military research tends to make it into the consumer sphere and make us all better off, but that's definitely not what motivates the funding).

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

#269

Post by semiel »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #211
glesica wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

This is not a question of whether some specific person is a bad person. It's a question of whether the current incentive scheme leads to certain aggregate behavior.

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

#270

Post by Goladus »

danbruc wrote: post #95

Now go and explain the difference between this incident and a terror attack without using the fact the the former has been carried out by a state while the later has been carried out by civilians.

A terror attack would have deliberately targeted the wedding convoy because it's a soft target and because of the fear it would inspire among civilian non-combatants.
Post reply on HN