Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 491 posts

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#61

Post by DominikR »

yeukhon wrote: post #46
fit2rule wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've identified the problem - deonotology - but not the solution. Anyone who kills for a living, is violating the most basic rules of human life, that have been taught us since we rose from this Earth: life is sacred. You can't educate a dead man.

The first premise is right: life is scared. At least in our culture that's the case. We believe the natural rights of being a living human. But I argue that the 2nd is not true. The claim is too strong. If life is sacred, we ought not to kill anyone. Capital punishment must not be exercised as a result. Because people are rational animals they can make poor judgements. So we must forgive and give them a second chance…

What would be the benefit of killing a person if he/she can be taken prisoner safely and tried for his/her crimes.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#62

Post by ZanyProgrammer »

mzr wrote: post #38
cpncrunch wrote: post #15

A little bit more background on Heather Linebaugh: http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/soldiers-in-the-military-are-...

24 years old. I know this veers into hyperbole, but it seems we've both killed and ruined a whole generation.

And slightly older people-a 24 year old in 2003 who served in Iraq could be just as fucked up now as a 35 year old.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#63

Post by dasil003 »

fit2rule wrote: post #45
dreamfactory wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The usual argument is that such people 'occur naturally' and the army at least directs their activities outwards (it forms the distinction between grunt and officer class in the forces). I don't agree with the premise but it's a nature vs nurture question.

I don't buy the justification. We can choose not to kill people. We can choose to spend our time educating people, instead. Those who join the military, subjugate themselves to others, and stop making choices. This is a contagious disease, not some 'normality' about human existence...

Violence is a part of nature, and humans are evolved to participate in it like all animals. It only becomes evil in the context of human values, where I agree there is no reason for people to be killing each other. However the ability and taste for killing is a genetic trait that has been valuable for some individuals over time, so don't fool yourself that some people aren't genetically primed to be killers.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#64

Post by opinali »

melling wrote: post #36
ck2 wrote: post #4

The feed is so pixelated, what if it's a shovel, and not a weapon? I felt this confusion constantly, as did my fellow UAV analysts. We always wonder if we killed the right people If this question even comes up once, drones should never, ever be armed. Why is is okay to repeatedly kill the wrong person in another country? Can you imagine if that happened even just once in the USA? We need an international ban on armed…

There you go again ck2. One of your classic comments. We used to napalm people. Lots of "wrong people" get killed in all wars. Flying in B-17's and B-52's was pretty ugly too, we just couldn't record the carnage on video. There's probably never going to be a war where innocent people aren't killed. Precision weapons probably kill fewer people but if you want a "clean" war, I don't think that's possible. The real solu…

Drones, Napalm, B-52 bombing—all weapons for cowards. The problem with remote-control war is that there's no political cost; remember that the Vietnam war didn't end because the great public bought into the hippies' peace&love ideology, it ended because the great public was receiving too many of their sons back in body bags.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#65

Post by yeukhon »

DominikR wrote: post #61
yeukhon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first premise is right: life is scared. At least in our culture that's the case. We believe the natural rights of being a living human. But I argue that the 2nd is not true. The claim is too strong. If life is sacred, we ought not to kill anyone. Capital punishment must not be exercised as a result. Because people are rational animals they can make poor judgements. So we must forgive and give them a second chance…

What would be the benefit of killing a person if he/she can be taken prisoner safely and tried for his/her crimes.

Are you asking me? I don't understand your question. I am arguing that if killing is absolutely not allowed at all, regardless of the cause, as he suggests, is wrong.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#66

Post by sleepyK »

reinhardt wrote: post #33
ck2 wrote: post #4

The feed is so pixelated, what if it's a shovel, and not a weapon? I felt this confusion constantly, as did my fellow UAV analysts. We always wonder if we killed the right people If this question even comes up once, drones should never, ever be armed. Why is is okay to repeatedly kill the wrong person in another country? Can you imagine if that happened even just once in the USA? We need an international ban on armed…

> If this question even comes up once, drones should never, ever be armed. A little perspective could prevent such knee-jerk reactions. The ambiguity of drone targets is still miles ahead from basically blind carpet bombing a whole area that was (and still often is) the rule for the last century or so of modern warfare.

The thing is, the convenience of drones has made it much easier for countries to carry out strikes without any regard to the damage they will cause.

In the past, the possibility of your soldiers dying on the ground was a huge deterrent to frivolous strikes. Today, drones conduct major strikes without paying any heed to international borders. Drones conduct missions nobody would have imagined possible a few years back. While there is a huge benefit to the invading army in terms of reduction of fatalities, there is also a cheapening of war that lets commanders order strikes at their whim. I'm sure nobody in the US or NATO armies in Afghanistan admits this, but this happens in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#67

Post by cbg0 »

logotype wrote: post #28

The story is contradictory "...I watched parts of the conflict in great detail on a screen..." and "The feed is so pixelated"

He didn't mean he was watching it clearly in 4K resolution when he said "great detail", he was trying to convey that he had a good understanding of what was going on on the ground even though he wasn't on the ground.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#68

Post by fit2rule »

yeukhon wrote: post #59
fit2rule wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who claims to have the right to kill others - for any reason whatsoever - should be treated by greater society as anti-human - since human lives are being removed from the universe as a result of their actions. This goes for the current Joint Chiefs of Staff as much as it does any historical figure.

> Anyone who claims to have the right to kill others - for any reason whatsoever - should be treated by greater society as anti-human Sorry, this is rubbish. This society we know of is built and established with guns and blood. We shall not have police, army or even guns. We fought wars. Your ancestors, my ancestors all fought in war one way or another. If you think that self-defending yourself against some murderer…

(Nice: You de-Godwin'ed yourself with an edit.)

We do not live in a world where War is necessary. We live in a world where War is created, for some purpose.

With the tools and technologies we have available to us today, why is that purpose still to maim, murder, kill? Shouldn't the purposes have been aligned, by now, to make the trillion-dollar debt of the American people worth at least something to the rest of the human species?

We don't need another B1 bomber. We do need schools where our children can learn to respect and love each other.

Yes, I'm a 'peace-nik'. I'm human.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#69

Post by vinceguidry »

dreamfactory wrote: post #10
ck2 wrote: post #4

The feed is so pixelated, what if it's a shovel, and not a weapon? I felt this confusion constantly, as did my fellow UAV analysts. We always wonder if we killed the right people If this question even comes up once, drones should never, ever be armed. Why is is okay to repeatedly kill the wrong person in another country? Can you imagine if that happened even just once in the USA? We need an international ban on armed…

Not to justify any of this business, but why on earth wouldn't they apply 'beyond reasonable doubt' in their own minds when summarily executing somebody in the first place?

One of the best books to read to get a feel for how America commits its war crimes is Kill Anything that Moves about the Vietnam war.

http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Anything-That-Moves-American-eboo...

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#70

Post by rwmj »

rickdale wrote: post #54
ck2 wrote: post #4

The feed is so pixelated, what if it's a shovel, and not a weapon? I felt this confusion constantly, as did my fellow UAV analysts. We always wonder if we killed the right people If this question even comes up once, drones should never, ever be armed. Why is is okay to repeatedly kill the wrong person in another country? Can you imagine if that happened even just once in the USA? We need an international ban on armed…

I don't understand how we can have a the technology for a drone but we can't fly it close enough to get a good quality photograph. I am all for limiting casualties for the US, but how is it not a war crime to just kill people without 100% proof they are the enemy? And seriously, if cell phones are going to 39 megapixels, why can't a drone send back a good photo?

The advantage of a drone is it can "lurk" too far away to be easily seen. Building a camera that can take very clear pictures from a long way away is impossible (because of distortion from the air and weather). If you make the drone itself smaller, then you hit the Rayleigh limit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_criterion#Explanation

Post reply on HN