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

391–400 of 491 posts

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

#391

Post by pyre »

stiff wrote: post #299
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…

So drones are good because they are less bad?

Well, there is something to be said for rejecting a better solution just because it isn't a perfect solution.

(Not supporting drone strikes, but just making a general statement)

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

#392

Post by anigbrowl »

fatca wrote: post #377
allochthon wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And as an American I do live with a particular type of fear, which is that of the DEA and SWAT team escalations. I disagree that this is something to be all that worried about. It detracts from the rest of your argument.

The Bombay terrorist bombings are indeed -- like so many terrorist attacks -- a false-flag operation, organized by the United States' intelligence services.

[citation needed]

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

#393

Post by dylanrw »

ack006 wrote: post #387
fatca wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Bombay terrorist bombings are indeed -- like so many terrorist attacks -- a false-flag operation, organized by the United States' intelligence services.

Source (link) please, or I'll proclaim that the tin foil hat brigade has now thorougly infiltrated HN.

In a community where skepticism is valued there will exist the lazy quota who will look at popular opinion, assume the antithesis must be true and in turn, begin looking for supporting 'facts'. Don't be so surprised. :P

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

#394

Post by yodsanklai »

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…

"What's even better with drones we're not losing American solider lives"

But is this really a good thing? it seems to me the only thing that the american public really cares about is the number of US casualties. Without any, the US will have even less restriction to pursue their wars.

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

#395

Post by philwelch »

Houshalter wrote: post #386
philwelch wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an American thing. It's the human condition. I don't care where you live, if someone who lives down the street from you and looks like you gets killed, you care more about that than about someone on the other side of the world. That's how people work.

But there is no reason it has to be that way. For most of human history we lived in small tribes of a hundred people or so, and everyone pretty much cared only for the people in their own tribe. But then we moved on to entire cities of thousands, where you likely didn't know everyone else, but it was still possible to care for strangers because they were still part of your "tribe". Then we moved on to nations with mi…

Maybe. It would be nice.

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

#396

Post by scintill76 »

coldtea wrote: post #158

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 l…

> soldiers who have them on THEIR side. How about the impact of drones to the OTHER side?

I think this is still a somewhat useful (even if unfair) approach. So much of the conversation is already centered on how the "other" side effectively has no rights because they're not in America and are suspected of terrorism, and how drones are so much safer and cheaper for "our" side. I view this approach as saying "OK, so you want to believe those non-American deaths really can be written off as an 'unfortunate but necessary cost of war.' Let's see how horrific this still is for our troops that have to run these things and watch people die day after day; how IEDs still slip through screening and our troops have to watch, from thousands of miles away, their own comrades bleed out on the side of the road, through an oversight they may feel responsible for."

Most of the politicians are spinning this as something precise and safe for our troops. It makes sense for the counterpoint to focus on how it's not precise and has hidden human costs to the troops. And it is clear the author understands the immorality of the deaths themselves, but that's not the focus because there aren't many people willing to argue in that arena.

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

#397

Post by im3w1l »

dchichkov wrote: post #369
rwmj wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Actually you are sort of wrong in both cases. Because a) drone is moving; b) drone can take multiple pictures; c) multiple drones can take pictures simultaneously. In case of multiple drones taking pictures, these can be synchronized using GPS time, down to a microsecond. And knowing the GPS coordinates of each drone you can recover the image. Pretty much with arbitrary quality. (& If you are really good at it and th…

>I can point you to some fancy research in computer vision, that allows you to do just that.

Please do

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

#398

Post by glesica »

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…

Your thinking on this subject is flawed, I think.

  > We all know war is hell. We know using weapons to attack people creates horrific, real human harm. So starting off listing the effects of weaponry on humans tells us nothing about drones. It just tells us about the horrors of war. Given this is an article about drones it should be very drone specific.
This is a perfectly valid line of inquiry, in my opinion, because drones are often seen as being a "sterile" way to fight a war. No casualties on our side. To many, and especially the mainstream press, this basically means "no casualties worth caring about". So, reminding people every now and then that drones DO cause horrific destruction and death is a perfectly worthwhile undertaking.

  > Do drones increase or decrease the inevitable horrors of war?
Your questions is almost absurd, it is not the right question to be asking. Of course drones reduce the overall horrors of war, because one side experiences no horrors at all! On the other hand, since one side experiences no horrors at all, it seems reasonable to think that these weapons will be over-used, used in situations where violence is not strictly necessary, thus actually increasing the amount of violence. Also, because the drones are essentially an enemy that can't be fought, the only rational counter is to strike at whatever American assets are available and vulnerable (terrorism).

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

#399

Post by jusben1369 »

glesica wrote: post #398
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…

Your thinking on this subject is flawed, I think. > We all know war is hell. We know using weapons to attack people creates horrific, real human harm. So starting off listing the effects of weaponry on humans tells us nothing about drones. It just tells us about the horrors of war. Given this is an article about drones it should be very drone specific. This is a perfectly valid line of inquiry, in my opinion, because…

IF drones are more effective at killing the enemy than earlier methods (tomahawk missile from sea, manned airplane/s releasing multiple missiles) where effective = = smaller, more targeted kills then they are reducing the horror of the war on the enemy too. That would be on a micro level and it appears to be true. If however as a result of the ease of using drones you run significantly more attacks than pre drones the net effect would be more horrors visited on the overall population. These are very real questions worth answering. We'd all love for there not to be wars but if there are then prosecuting them in the most humane way possible to target only the combatants is a very worthwhile thing to study. I'd like to learn more. I also agree with your point that if we become so effective at this to the point where the enemy feels no chance at any type of revenge because they never even get to engage with a real live American then out of frustration they very well might turn to more terrorist acts. It's a very valid point.

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

#400

Post by jusben1369 »

yodsanklai wrote: post #394
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…

"What's even better with drones we're not losing American solider lives" But is this really a good thing? it seems to me the only thing that the american public really cares about is the number of US casualties. Without any, the US will have even less restriction to pursue their wars.

ahhh, sorry if that wasn't clear. That was part of my fictional pro drone Fox News opinion piece. I'd imagine a pro war/pro drone piece would include a quote like that. I agree with your observation that you make.
Post reply on HN