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

71–80 of 100 posts

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

#71

Post by lostInTheWoods3 »

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…

To quote Walter White: We are not in danger, we are the danger. And would we want it any other way? Could we as a nation accept being second best at the delivery of death and destruction?

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

#72

Post by vidarh »

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…

One of the interesting aspects is how the mere existence of cheap drones will need to alter defence. Consider that for a terrorist group, once they've demonstrated the willingness to use drones, they can drastically increase the cost in defending against attacks by using very cheap fakes.

A government targeted with drones would not dare take the risk of finding out the "wrong way" whether or not the incoming drone is loaded with explosives, or is a cheap toy. Now imagine a steady stream of hundreds of cheap toys, with one every now and again loaded with explosives.

Say (just to pull random numbers) that a real "homemade" drone costs $10k/piece, and a fake one drops down to $100/piece and you can send out 101 w/one real for the cost of 2 real ones. Yet the cost of defending against the attack has gone up 100-fold.

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

#73

Post by jmstriegel »

torkins wrote: post #20
rdl wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but "we" (western media, etc.) tended to call attacks on the occupation forces terrorism, too. The pretense was the war was "over", so the occupation forces were there for law and order, not war, so attacks on them were criminal/terrorist/etc. vs. "legitimate warfare". Pressure/etc. detonated IEDs are sort of a grey area, honestly, as are military landmines, cluster munitions where you know a large fraction…

actually "we" called those attacking the coalition and Iraqi military "insurgents". Plenty of actual, Iraqi civilian targets were killed by Al-Qa'ida in Iraq and other terrorists with car bombs, suicide bombers, hostage takings etc. The distinction is pretty clear between the two, I think if you are accusing media of whitewashing all Iraqi insurgents under the banner of terrorism you should back it up.

I think the argument is that the semantics really only matter to who's making the definitions. If you're a civilian and you live in fear that you or a family member may be the casualty of an unprovoked bombing, be it by insurgents, terrorists, or drones, the distinction is irrelevant.

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

#74

Post by vidarh »

davidf18 wrote: post #64
streptomycin wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well, at times there will be collateral damage when targeting terrorists just as when targeting other enemy combatants. Sure, Putin's (or any other's intent) is a different matter, but on the whole, any country should be allowed to use drones or any other technology to target individuals who target their civilians (eg, terrorists) as well as their military and infrastructure. What they do not have the right to do is…

> any country should be allowed to use drones or any other technology to target individuals who target their civilians (eg, terrorists)

According to Russia, this definition have in several instances included regular Ukrainian troops, who according to the Ukranian government, is fighting terrorists/insurgents that are targeting Ukranian civilians on Ukrainian territory. See how this gets messy quickly, when either side have completely different versions of events?

The "we need to protect our civilians (even if they live in a different country, were born there, and have never been our citizens) against individuals who are targeting them" argument is one of history's oldest excuses for going to war. Sometimes it may be justified, but it also very often conveniently ignore that the "targeted civilians" may themselves have been insurgents or terrorists or infiltrators who were legitimate targets.

It's a popular excuse whether or not it is true, because assuming your attacks go well, it gets very hard to find out the truth when everyone involved has been conveniently killed.

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

#75

Post by vidarh »

davidf18 wrote: post #61
Pwntastic wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Terrorists are people who target civilians, regardless of which country they are in.

So police are terrorists?

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

#76

Post by dragonwriter »

lostInTheWoods3 wrote: post #71
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…

To quote Walter White: We are not in danger, we are the danger. And would we want it any other way? Could we as a nation accept being second best at the delivery of death and destruction?

Every other nation on the planet accepts being second (or third...or 197th) best at that, and very few of those seem to see it as a particular problem.

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

#77

Post by arethuza »

jessaustin wrote: post #45
rational-future wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For a significant proportion of the Cold War the United States wildly exaggerated (by multiple orders of magnitude) the strategic threat posed by the Soviets:

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

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

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

#78

Post by rdl »

torkins wrote: post #20
rdl wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but "we" (western media, etc.) tended to call attacks on the occupation forces terrorism, too. The pretense was the war was "over", so the occupation forces were there for law and order, not war, so attacks on them were criminal/terrorist/etc. vs. "legitimate warfare". Pressure/etc. detonated IEDs are sort of a grey area, honestly, as are military landmines, cluster munitions where you know a large fraction…

actually "we" called those attacking the coalition and Iraqi military "insurgents". Plenty of actual, Iraqi civilian targets were killed by Al-Qa'ida in Iraq and other terrorists with car bombs, suicide bombers, hostage takings etc. The distinction is pretty clear between the two, I think if you are accusing media of whitewashing all Iraqi insurgents under the banner of terrorism you should back it up.

I enter into evidence: Fox News 2001-2009, if not 2009-2014 too.

The actual terms used in Iraq by the US Military varied, too, from "insurgents", "Anti-Iraqi Forces" (irony, when it was Iraqis attacking the US..."), "foreign fighters", "former regime elements" (even when they were foreign and/or people Saddam had persecuted), Iranian-sponsored militias, etc.

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

#79

Post by pessimizer »

sanderjd wrote: post #39
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.

> Terrorism is the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. Source? Debating the definitions of words is often silly, but I think it's worth pointing out that 1) the definition of "terrorism" isn't broadly agreed upon, and 2) the definition you're using is more narrow than peoples'. The definition that searching google gives is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims", which drone attacks…

>2) the definition you're using is more narrow than peoples'.

Most people's definition of terrorism is "any violent act committed by a Muslim without clear monetary gain," so this definition is actually much more general.

>"the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims"

War, then?

As you said, though, debating definitions is a waste of time.

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

#80

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

jessaustin wrote: post #65
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's really a cop-out to blame the voters. We're never going to be as well-informed, persuasive, or powerful as a five-star general who is also a re-elected President. ( No one will ever be that well-informed, persuasive, or powerful.) Eisenhower could have ordered projects, divisions, and fleets mothballed and sent the money back to the Treasury, and the media couldn't have incited any riots about it. Do you think O…

> We're never going to be as well-informed,

Cries of "we're too stupid, save us from ourselves!" are unlikely to ever be answered with acceptable solutions.

> or powerful as a five-star general who

You have all the power in the world. You don't seem to know it. Maybe that's the problem.

> Eisenhower could have ordered projects, divisions, and fleets mothballed

No, Congress could have done that. Not Ike. He might have tried, and he would have been cockblocked. Too much money in it. Do you think the coast states would have wanted fleets mothballed with their economies tanking soon afterward?

> Prior to WWII in this country the phrase "standing army" was one of derision.

Why isn't it now? Why when I mention the idea that I think having a standing army is bad now, people treat me like a kook?

The truth is, you want to have a standing army. You vote that way. You get neurotically worried if someone like me suggests that maybe we don't need a navy at all (but how would we save the poor oppressed people of X with our bombs and collateral damage?!!?!).

> At this point, the only way to stop these particular pigs

You're the pig.

Post reply on HN