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

221–230 of 491 posts

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

#221

Post by bliksem »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #77

It sucks to be part of the human element making life and death decisions about armed robots being used in non-traditional war situations. That's about all I got from this. And yes, it does suck. There was a third claim, that the public is misinformed/misled, but I take issue with that one. I think most people understand that somebody, somewhere is pushing the button. This essay didn't go into the rationale for drone…

"There was a third claim, that the public is misinformed/misled, but I take issue with that one. I think most people understand that somebody, somewhere is pushing the button."

True - though the mislead part I feel largely relates to claims of surgical strikes and claims of minimal 'collateral' deaths and injuries.

" the terrible things we are doing does not in any way make those things less necessary" What is being done is indeed terrible - though I have yet to see the necessary bit backed up by any coherent numbers.

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

#222

Post by ItendToDisagree »

d23 wrote: post #215
avenger123 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you so much for reminding me that I should care about not being manipulated. Your comment is so full of really good unbiased views that I just wanted to tell you how much non-manipulated I felt by your comment. I especially enjoyed your notion that the Guardian is "serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion." You are so right. I always fell that the White House and the American…

He provided some very real, substantive counterpoints, none of which you responded to.

And these were? It read much more as a practice in "no one is unbiased so this is misleading."

It also tries to equate drones use against individual targets (a couple individuals generally) with large scale bombing, which is highly disputable, given that it is used more in an assassination sense. The "manipulation" in the comment is pretty blatant.

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

#223

Post by ris »

mikeash wrote: post #103
opinali wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I bet people used to call rifles "weapons for cowards". And before that, muskets. And cannons. Before that, I'm sure people thought bows and arrows were "for cowards". Or spears. Or just plain pointy sticks.

They probably did up until the point when both sides were armed with them. But the difference with Napalms, B52s and drone strikes is the enemy they were used against were never likely to be able to obtain similar weapons and thus threaten their opponents to a similar extent.

I'm not particularly sure about the concept of "cowardice" here, I just had to point out this logical flaw.

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

#224

Post by melling »

coldtea wrote: post #218
melling wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean like in Syria where 130,000 people have died? http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/02/us-syria-crisis-to... By some accounts, 1 in 10 killed was a child. Why don't we ever discuss this on HN? Until after the WWII, the US really didn't involve itself in much of the world's conflicts. Our tradition is to pretty much leave the world to fix its own problems. We joined WWI during the last year of the war and…

> Do you mean like in Syria where 130,000 people have died? Yes. How many have died in the US Civil war? I read ~215K combat deaths and ~500K civillian deaths. Should someone had intervene, e.g Britain or France, aiding one side over the other (and pushing their own agenda)? > Until after the WWII, the US really didn't involve itself in much of the world's conflicts. Our tradition is to pretty much leave the world to…

The French did intervene in the US Revolutionary War. That's probably why there is a United States today.

Yes, WWII is well documented. The point was we didn't send in our full military until 1941. It's possible tens of millions more people would not have died if we had joined earlier.

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

#225

Post by Iftheshoefits »

jusben1369 wrote: post #112

We need to make sure we're not being manipulated. Here the Guardian is just serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion. I'm not sure how this is different to much of the chest beating I'd see on Fox News. I'm not here to argue for or against the drones. Just that if we pride ourselves on being educated and critical thinkers that we apply that to all sources of data we read. We all kno…

I've worked in the defense industry. You suspect this and you suggest that and assert "we need to make sure we're not being manipulated".

Let me tell you something: based on my experience it is far easier to believe the source for the linked article than to take anything you wrote seriously.

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

#226

Post by rayiner »

pstuart wrote: post #196
rayiner wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So let's send drones to Saudi Arabia. Most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and it was done in response to our presence there. This is anti-national security -- all this does is pour gasoline on the fire of anti-American sentiment. People like you supporting this madness is the reason the world is going to hell. Ugh.

Saudi funded religious schools are a key formenter of anti-American Islamist sentiment around the world. Forget drones, their actions warrant larger-scale military action.

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

#227

Post by melling »

fit2rule wrote: post #132
cmdkeen wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No-one is saying that we shouldn't try to educate our potential enemies, especially in places like Afghanistan. I'm just pointing out that your "drop books on them instead" it fatuous and wouldn't work. Provide the security so that people won't be killed for being educated, and education is best. Educating without security just leads to dead kids.

Look, take the amount of technology developed to murder, kill and maim - and instead use that same degree of technology to educate, enlighten, and liberate. How hard is it to understand this concept? It was once very, very difficult to drop a bomb on a childs head from afar - you used to have to do a lot more. Now its 'easy', relatively speaking. Imagine if that same scale of efficacy were applied, instead, to educat…

Most Americans think we already spend too much on foreign aid. So, politically what you are proposing isn't going to work. Perhaps a privately funded solution. The "Three Cups of Tea" author was doing some of this but it turned out he wasn't completely honest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Cups_of_Tea

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

#228

Post by mikeash »

ris wrote: post #223
mikeash wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet people used to call rifles "weapons for cowards". And before that, muskets. And cannons. Before that, I'm sure people thought bows and arrows were "for cowards". Or spears. Or just plain pointy sticks.

They probably did up until the point when both sides were armed with them. But the difference with Napalms, B52s and drone strikes is the enemy they were used against were never likely to be able to obtain similar weapons and thus threaten their opponents to a similar extent. I'm not particularly sure about the concept of "cowardice" here, I just had to point out this logical flaw.

On what timescale does "never" apply? Large technological gaps in weapons between different people carrying out a fight aren't that uncommon, after all. A couple hundred years later and you can hardly tell the difference.

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

#229

Post by st0p »

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.

317/7134 = 0.044, which is indeed 4.4%

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

#230

Post by mikeash »

ItendToDisagree wrote: post #222
d23 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He provided some very real, substantive counterpoints, none of which you responded to.

And these were? It read much more as a practice in "no one is unbiased so this is misleading." It also tries to equate drones use against individual targets (a couple individuals generally) with large scale bombing, which is highly disputable, given that it is used more in an assassination sense. The "manipulation" in the comment is pretty blatant.

Two substantive counterpoints I spot in the comment are 1) that telling us about the effects of drone weapons is emotional manipulation, not informative, because the "drone" part doesn't affect it at all and 2) the idea that decisions are hard because the view is "pixelated" applies just as much to the regular kind of warfare.
Post reply on HN