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

151–160 of 491 posts

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

#151

Post by stefan_kendall »

melling wrote: post #109
macspoofing wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Lots of "wrong people" get killed in all wars. What war are we in currently?!

Are you playing the we never declared war game? We didn't declare war in Korea either. It was the Korean Conflict. Anyway, let's try not to run into the weeds playing games. It adds no value to the conversation.

The question is not whether the US military is murdering on a consistent, timely basis. It's a question of why the murdering is happening in the first place.

I have no power to change any aspect of the US military, but that doesn't mean I can't decry it as evil.

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

#152

Post by Natsu »

rayiner wrote: post #133
fit2rule wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this story anything but a plea to the people to reign in their heinous military masters? You state 'we must be sure we're not being manipulated' - towards what end, exactly? The logical conclusion of this opinion piece (it is marked thus) is that we should not allow our elected representatives to get away with murder. How is that in any way a negative result?

Fewer drone strikes are not necessarily in the national interest. Taking the horrors of drone strikes out of context is manipulative if we don't also consider the horrors of the alternative ways of achieving military objectives.

What are our objectives, exactly, and how do the UAVs support them?

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

#153

Post by bjelkeman-again »

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…

The world is more peaceful:

"The number of conflicts (both international and civil) fell from over 50 at the start of the 1990s to just over 30 in 2005 (definitions are obviously fluid; these are the ones used by scholars at the universities of Uppsala and British Columbia for a project called the “Human Security Report”). On their definitions, the number of international wars peaked during the 1970s and has been falling slowly since. The number of civil wars continued to rise until about 1990 and then fell precipitately. In total, the death toll in battle fell from over 200,000 a year in the mid-1980s to below 20,000 in the mid-2000s."

The Economist, 28 June 2008: http://www.economist.com/node/10564141

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

#154

Post by AndrewKemendo »

fit2rule wrote: post #21
neals wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the innocent victims that we make today will get us on track to developing better drones with more resolution and less errors and doubt. I imagine a perfect drone without any human controller, doing it's business by AI, actually making the world a better place. [edit] lots of hate and naive comments. Fact remains that human progress has always come through sacrificing some of us for the greater good. Innocent…

What a disgusting point of view. The only thing that would make the world a better place is if the funding for death-machines was instead being used to deliver water purification plants, schools and education packages, medical supplies - to those human beings living in the 'foreign lands' who really need it. For the cost of a single Hellfire, many Afghanistan villages could've been given power, for the first time, to…

For the cost of a single Hellfire, many Afghanistan villages could've been given power, for the first time, to charge their phones, making it possible for them to communicate, to educate themselves.

A nice thought, but anyone who has spent time in rural AFG/PAK or Yemen/Somalia (where most of this is happening) will tell you that that is not what would happen. More typical, the power would be diverted to or ripped out by the local warlords to maintain their own power over the population - and most of the "regular" citizens go along with it because it meets cultural demands of the religiosity and tribalism that has been baked in for.

Liberalism (classic) can't be forced on a region or a group of people.

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

#155

Post by stefan_kendall »

TruthElixirX wrote: post #12
wreegab wrote: post #8

> "the video provided by a drone is a far cry from clear enough to detect someone carrying a weapon, even on a crystal-clear day with limited clouds and perfect light" I wished she had pushed the questioning even further: Even if it's a weapon, that doesn't mean the person is a threat. I mean it's full of people carrying weapons in the U.S., they are not presumed a threat. And even if the person is deemed a threat, m…

How is a guy two continents away carrying an AK a threat in any sane fashion? He sure as hell can't use the gun to fly over the ocean.

The U.S countryside is strewn with men and women fitting this description. I bet it would be even more true if foreign soldiers were occupying america and routinely bombing its citizens.

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

#156

Post by 7952 »

neals wrote: post #11
fit2rule wrote: post #6

I think that one thing we 'normals' don't seem to understand, is that when you are in the business of killing, murdering, maiming other human beings, you're no longer really part of society. Society is determined by the survival of its members - start removing them, and you get a lesser society. That is obvious. But we in the 'normal' society don't have a clue what those in the 'murdering business society' really thi…

You seem very opinionated about this. I haven't given this as much thought as you have, but I think that doing something to protect your society from evil must count for something. Do you really see it as black and white as you describe it?

These soldiers are facing a huge personal price for the part they played in this war. The psychological impact of "just following orders" is huge and could damage them for the rest of their lives. We should respect veterans because of the personal cost, not because of the benefits (imagined or otherwise). You may see it a good vs evil, but I doubt that many of the victims do.

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

#157

Post by wreegab »

TruthElixirX wrote: post #12
wreegab wrote: post #8

> "the video provided by a drone is a far cry from clear enough to detect someone carrying a weapon, even on a crystal-clear day with limited clouds and perfect light" I wished she had pushed the questioning even further: Even if it's a weapon, that doesn't mean the person is a threat. I mean it's full of people carrying weapons in the U.S., they are not presumed a threat. And even if the person is deemed a threat, m…

How is a guy two continents away carrying an AK a threat in any sane fashion? He sure as hell can't use the gun to fly over the ocean.

I just wished she questioned further. The more the better.

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

#158

Post by coldtea »

I thought this would be an anti-drone confession, but in reality it looks mostly manipulative.

Most of it is the impact of using drones on drone operators and the soldiers who have them on THEIR side. How about the impact of drones to the OTHER side? You know, the one under attack? Even giving them both 50% share of the article is a disservice to them, and here it's even worse. How about them breaking international law? How about them being used for murder operations in a no-war situation? How about them used already and even more down the road against a country's own citizens?

Another part of the article is about how they have low fidelity screens and radars and such. As if, if they had better tech (which they'll get down the road) all would be well with them.

Not much touching the actual ethical, human, political and diplomatic implications of their use.

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

#159

Post by jessaustin »

rayiner wrote: post #149
dantheman wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What military objectives - we are not at war with any of these countries.

Why must war be against countries? The types of activities being carried out in Yemen, Pakistan, etc, if state sanctioned, would be justification for war. Does the fact that Yemen and Pakistan can't police themselves internally enough to stop these activities make military retaliation unjustified? Would you feel better if we just declared war on Yemen and Pakistan?

Would you feel better if we just declared war on Yemen and Pakistan?

Yes! I for one would love to live in a nation that required public informed consent, after public debate of public information, by elected representatives of an informed public, before killing people on the other side of the globe.

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

#160

Post by classicsnoot »

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #139
sneak wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All of us foreigners are fair game Americans feel this way, sure. But Americans are only 4% of humans, and soon 100% of humans will be on the Internet. This worldview is not an economic survival trait. I suggest relaxing, brewing some tea, and waiting for this to play out in the global market. Either they'll change, or they'll go out of business.

Reply to classicsnoot: in your referenced article the estimated US population is 317 million, and the world population is 7134 million. 317/7134=0.444 so the US population is then 4.4% of the world population.

thanks to you and @alpeper, i appreciate you reserving judgement i used to be embarrassed of my poor maths skills, but now i do not have the time for silly feel.
Post reply on HN