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

Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 100 posts

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#41

Post by AJ007 »

eevilspock wrote: post #19
rbanffy wrote: post #3

Endless war is exactly what military contractors want. On an interesting digression, "War Without End" is a two-part Babylon 5 episode that won a Hugo award.

A good time to listen to or reread Eisenhower's 1961 speech warning of the Military-Industrial Complex. "Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of ploughshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast…

The Military-Industrial Complex is often brought up in the context of US capitalism, but was quite relevant to the USSR. In that case, a giant chunk of the country's economy was taken up for military production. The military commanders, KGB, and all of those employed by the USSR's Military-Industrial Complex had a strong interest in justifying their continued existence.

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#42

Post by streptomycin »

The report raised warnings that other countries might adopt the same rationale as the United States has for carrying out lethal strikes outside of declared war zones. Using an example of a current crisis, it said that Russia could use armed drones in Ukraine under the justification that it was killing anti-Russian terrorists and then refuse to disclose the intelligence that served as the basis for the strike.

“In such circumstances,” the report asked, “how could the United States credibly condemn Russian targeted killings?”

Good question.

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#43

Post by jessaustin »

eevilspock wrote: post #19
rbanffy wrote: post #3

Endless war is exactly what military contractors want. On an interesting digression, "War Without End" is a two-part Babylon 5 episode that won a Hugo award.

A good time to listen to or reread Eisenhower's 1961 speech warning of the Military-Industrial Complex. "Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of ploughshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast…

I'm glad someone said it, but I have the feeling that if anyone could have slowed or reversed the national infection, Eisenhower would have been that person. (It would have been unreasonable to expect of Truman, anyway.) It makes me wonder if Ike actually even considered the MIC a problem during most of his presidency, or whether perhaps it was only when they stopped taking his calls as a lame duck that he had his epiphany.

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#44

Post by dragonwriter »

dmix wrote: post #32
dragonwriter wrote: post #29

That's a silly conclusion, since the US has been engaged in essentially non-stop war since at least WWII (with a developing national security state based on that permanent war footing), most of which didn't involve drones. Drones certainly lower the political cost of war, but they aren't something that "risks" war without end, they are something developed and deployed in an environment where "war without end" was alr…

There is plenty of unique things about this new type of long-term warfare: a) every operation is conducted in total secrecy b) most of it is executed remotely, or occasionally via Special Forces commandos on the ground when drones can't get the job done c) they are (apparently) based off of a 'kill-list', which is essentially an assassination list This is very different than the decades of conventional warfare the US…

> There is plenty of unique things about this new type of long-term warfare:

No, there aren't.

> a) every operation is conducted in total secrecy

Within the drone program, which is largely a secrete component of an overt global military anti-"terrorism" campaign, sure. But having a major secret component of an overt effort isn't new or unique since the inception of the drone program, its been a regular part of the post-WWII permanent war.

> b) most of it is executed remotely, or occasionally via Special Forces commandos on the ground when drones can't get the job done

Yes, the technology for precisely targetted remote attacks is new, though using whatever remote attack capability was available isn't. So, yes, technology advances.

Obviously, use of Special Forces is not new.

> c) they are (apparently) based off of a 'kill-list', which is essentially an assassination list

Assassination as a tool of state policy by the US in the covert portion of its permanent wars isn't a new product of drones, either.

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#45

Post by jessaustin »

rational-future wrote: post #35
eevilspock wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good time to listen to or reread Eisenhower's 1961 speech warning of the Military-Industrial Complex. "Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of ploughshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast…

Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex in the speech draft. Pretty much `they` have won and we - the 99% - have lost. Queue the downvotes ;)

To be fair, one could also consider the media a leg of that stool. After all, has any journalist or pundit challenged the assumption that the goat-and-beard enthusiasts are as dangerous a threat as the Soviets were? Before that, did anyone challenge the assumption that the Soviets were as dangerous a threat as the Nazis were? The narrative is inescapable.

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#46

Post by cmdkeen »

pjmlp wrote: post #16
bd_at_rivenhill wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Civilian" targets can become valid military targets. For example, if an enemy force forms a line of resistance within an urban or suburban area, then it is legitimate to attack and destroy that area. A civilian area that is not occupied by an enemy force is not a legitimate target, and attacking it constitutes a war crime.

I always found that type of argumentation interesting, war is a crime.

The Law of Armed Conflict exists because you can't stop war from happening, especially if you aren't willing to fight a war yourself to stop it.

It's also worth pointing out that war/conflict are not the same thing, the definition of who is protected during a conflict is much broader than members of the armed forces during a formal war.

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#47

Post by arethuza »

JackFr wrote: post #31
spingsprong wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, if by similar you mean completely different. If a group did attack a military convoy with a remote controlled IED, it wouldn't be an act of terrorism. Terrorism is the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. A remote controlled IED isn't indiscriminate, and a military convoy isn't civilian.

Are you willing to hold Churchill and the RAF to the same standard?

My father was in the RAF during WW2 (not in Bomber Command though) and I've often wondered about the morality of what our country did then - the best defense I've seen of the strategy was that unlike for the Nazis the indiscriminate killing of civilians was never a goal in itself for the Allies but something that was a means to the end of finishing the war.

Note that although that's probably the best argument, I'm still not completely satisfied with it.

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#48

Post by davidf18 »

seren wrote: post #2

What I find really odd is how similar a drone strike is to a terrorist attack. A military convoy is being attacked by a remotely controlled IED, you can retaliate by sending a drone to blow up some pre-defined target. Maybe it is a fitting weapon for the twenty-first century, to put back some symmetry in asymmetric wars. The next logical step is the use of drones to perform terrorist attacks. It is easy to envision a…

A terrorist attack is defined by the object of the attack, not the method of the attack. Attacking civilian targets is terrorism. Attacking military targets and infrastructure, and especially in the case of attacking infrastructure when the fewest civilians would be killed (eg, nights or Sundays) is not terrorism.

Thus, the use of drones, against terrorists (those who would attack civilians) or enemy combatants (those who target military or infrastructure targets) is certainly not terrorism. OTOH, if drones were deliberately (and not accidentally) targeting civilian, non-military, non-infrastructure targets, that would be terrorism.

Eliminating terrorists with drones is going to minimize the number of terrorist attacks just as eliminating terrorist with sniper rifles, or bombing.

I am speaking as someone who nearly escaped a terrorist attack in Israel (Jerusalem BMW attack).

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#49

Post by arethuza »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #14
spingsprong wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, if by similar you mean completely different. If a group did attack a military convoy with a remote controlled IED, it wouldn't be an act of terrorism. Terrorism is the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. A remote controlled IED isn't indiscriminate, and a military convoy isn't civilian.

Terrorists often hit military targets as well (Khobar towers, Beirut Marine barracks, etc.). Throughout most of "the troubles" the IRA targeted the military or police, should they not have been considered terrorists? The techniques of terrorists (say: car bombings) are shockingly little different in practice from drone strikes. Sure, certainly the intent is very different, but the result is nevertheless a disturbingl…

The IRA, INLA and their equivalents on the other side of the sectarian line such as the UVF were always considered terrorists here in the UK.

[NB That's not to say I can't understand the violent reaction of the members of the Nationalist community - even if I am appalled by what they often chose to do]

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#50

Post by [deleted] »

davidf18 wrote: post #48
seren wrote: post #2

What I find really odd is how similar a drone strike is to a terrorist attack. A military convoy is being attacked by a remotely controlled IED, you can retaliate by sending a drone to blow up some pre-defined target. Maybe it is a fitting weapon for the twenty-first century, to put back some symmetry in asymmetric wars. The next logical step is the use of drones to perform terrorist attacks. It is easy to envision a…

A terrorist attack is defined by the object of the attack, not the method of the attack. Attacking civilian targets is terrorism. Attacking military targets and infrastructure, and especially in the case of attacking infrastructure when the fewest civilians would be killed (eg, nights or Sundays) is not terrorism. Thus, the use of drones, against terrorists (those who would attack civilians) or enemy combatants (thos…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN