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

271–280 of 361 posts

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

#271

Post by nickff »

pantalaimon wrote: post #249
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.

What war are you talking about? What is the objective? What would have to happen for this 'war' to end?

When you have an army shooting at people in a foreign country, there is a war; call it whatever you want.

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

#272

Post by hansjorg »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #142
viraptor wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I recently stumbled upon an excellent, but slightly dark, browser game which explores these kind of themes. You play the role of a military drone pilot going about his everyday menial tasks.

Unmanned:

http://unmanned.molleindustria.org

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

#273

Post by MetaCosm »

nitrogen wrote: post #239
MetaCosm wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 -…

"It's always gotten worse, so it should always continue to get worse."

Words like "worse" and "should" are very loaded in this context. Was the blitzkrieg "worse" than the trench warfare of WW1? Was using nuclear weapons "worse" than firebombing (see: Firebombing of Toyko, Dresdon).

"Should" used to mean "probability or expectation", then yes, it "should" continue to to get "worse" (read: change).

War is a horrible endeavor at its very core. It will always be, we try to "civilize" it via rules that are always broken as soon as things become dire. It isn't the implements or efficiency that are the problem, but the waging of combat itself.

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

#274

Post by MattyRad »

Would anybody be surprised, even sympathetic, if the families of the deceased joined Al Qaeda as a direct result of this? Americans killed their friends and family on a sacred day, and nothing would be more appropriate than seeing they pay for it. Such an atrocity is almost comical when you think that the reason it occurred was to stop Al Qaeda, ends up bolstering it. It's appalling on so many levels.

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

#276

Post by dragonwriter »

pantalaimon wrote: post #249
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.

What war are you talking about? What is the objective? What would have to happen for this 'war' to end?

> What war are you talking about?

Presumably the one that was either (a) initiated by the 9/11 attacks and formally recognized as already existing by Congress in Public Law 107-40, or (b) was provoked by the 9/11 attacks and declared by Congress in Public Law 107-40, depending on how you choose to look at it.

> What is the objective?

"to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by" "those nations, organizations, or persons [the President determines] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001".

> What would have to happen for this 'war' to end?

Given the rather fluid definition in PL 107-40, it is not clear that it could formally and completely end absent a subsequent resolution of Congress terminating it.

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

#277

Post by bluecalm »

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?)

Care to point out which part of argument you find logically wrong ? I mean I find it correct and I find your hint actually hinting that you are not getting it.

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

#278

Post by yodsanklai »

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…

"Any industry that is built on addressing problems that people naturally have is going to generate lots of revenue."

And in the meantime, if they can make people think they have those problems, that would be even more revenue.

Like the pharmaceutical industry that sell you drugs for diseases you didn't even know existed. Or cigarettes manufacturers that want to solve your problem of not being addicted to nicotine...

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

#279

Post by bluecalm »

d23 wrote: post #263
RyanZAG wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There were more civilians deaths thatn this. If you are saying that expected number of people killed by expected number of terrorists this wedding could possibly be 14 or higher then no, it couldn't. As side effect by blowing up civilians you are creating more resentment leading to more terrorists.

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

#280

Post by nickff »

lmkg wrote: post #232
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.

In a word, commoditization. Regular aircraft are "expensive." They're literally expensive, in dollar terms, but even ignoring that they're logistically and operationally resource-intensive to operate. You only have so much airpower at your disposal, you're limited by flight deck space and pilot availability, you want to keep some in reserve, and aircraft are a bitch to maintain. Like, a week in service per day of fli…

>Like, a week in service per day of flight time.

When you read hours of maintenance per flight hour, you should remember that much of the maintenance is done on parts which are being rebuilt off the airframe.

>Now you're doing a lot more operations, on less-reliable intel, and the risk of cock-ups rises significantly.

Please provide a citation for this claim, as it is not self evident. Many claim that the increased loiter time of UAVs allow for better timing and targeting, and there has been video evidence of this. You may be correct, but you still bear the burden of evidence when you make this claim.

>putting a drone in the sky is faster than putting a regular plane in the sky.

This is untrue, as the USA has had B1 and B52 bombers continuously in flight over Afghanistan for weeks on end at many points in the war, to provide air support for ground forces. Most strike aircraft and bombers are also much faster than the UAVs.

Post reply on HN