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

51–60 of 100 posts

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

#51

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

jessaustin wrote: post #43
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…

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 ep…

It's easy to blame him, but he had surprisingly little power to stop it. The President (then, as now) could point it at any target he wished, but could do little to shut it down.

Congress is where the true power lies. They could, with a single vote, shut down any and all of it. Blame them.

Or, if you rather, blame yourself for voting the wrong people into Congress.

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

#52

Post by davidf18 »

streptomycin wrote: post #42

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 suc…

Well, if the Russian's are targeting terrorists (those people who attack civilians) then we should applaud their efforts for saving civilian lives.

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

#53

Post by geezer »

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…

So Heroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks?

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

#54

Post by gknoy »

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…

The trouble is, for most of the population over there, they feel like they could easily be the (mistaken/accidental) target of one of these. Living with a drone circling one's life inspires fear in both civilians and terrorists.

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

#55

Post by davidf18 »

lukifer wrote: post #23
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…

I wish I could remember who made this comparison (I'm guessing it was Jeremy Scahill?), but I agree with the idea that the primary hallmark of terrorism is the feeling of utter powerlessness to respond or defend yourself, making drone warfare just as terrorizing as a suicide bomber. I remember when Maryland residents lived in constant fear of going outside for a few weeks in 2002, due to a pair of uncaught snipers [1…

The primary hallmark of terrorism is targeting civilians (as opposed to military or infrastructure targets such as trains or refineries or factories). If a drone is used to attack a factory or a military target that is not terrorism. If a drone is intentionally used to attack a civilian, non-infrastructure target (eg, a wedding) then that is terrorism.

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

#56

Post by kolinko »

geezer wrote: post #53
davidf18 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So Heroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks?

IIRC both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because it would hurt japanese military the most. Back in those days a plenty of civilians died anyway during regular bomb raids.

But yeah, to some extent is probably was a terrorist attack.

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

#57

Post by Pwntastic »

davidf18 wrote: post #52
streptomycin wrote: post #42

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 suc…

Well, if the Russian's are targeting terrorists (those people who attack civilians) then we should applaud their efforts for saving civilian lives.

If it's an armed conflict between two groups of people who both consider themselves "citizens" of their locale and another country steps in, is it their right to decide which are the citizens and which are the terrorists?

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

#59

Post by gknoy »

geezer wrote: post #53
davidf18 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So Heroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks?

I'm not sure they qualify as that, but there are certainly people that believe that Robert McNamara was a war criminal [0]:

""" “We burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in Tokyo — men, women and children,” Mr. McNamara recalled; some 900,000 Japanese civilians died in all. “LeMay said, ‘If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals.’ And I think he’s right. He — and I’d say I — were behaving as war criminals.”

“What makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?” he asked. He found the question impossible to answer. """

[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/us/07mcnamara.html?pagewan...

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

#60

Post by streptomycin »

davidf18 wrote: post #52
streptomycin wrote: post #42

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 suc…

Well, if the Russian's are targeting terrorists (those people who attack civilians) then we should applaud their efforts for saving civilian lives.

Even if you make the assumptions that killing terrorists is always a good thing, that it is possible to accurately identify terrorists, that it is possible to kill them without collateral damage, etc... How do you know if they are honest about their intentions? Just take Putin's word for it?
Post reply on HN