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

How We Learned to Kill

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 154 posts

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#81

Post by Retra »

lucio wrote: post #28
krschultz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked as a mechanical engineer at a company that had 3x as many engineers as that number in one building. We all did a lot of calculations involving explosions, designing systems to survive explosions, etc. I bet if you polled every single one of them, it would be a unanimous agreement that airplanes caused the damage on 9/11. Also note, architects are not the right people to be quoting for this. When we hired arc…

The thing that never ceased to amaze me is the collapse of WT7. I can't explain it.

And somehow your incompetence makes you an expert?

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#82

Post by Qwertious »

mrottenkolber wrote: post #25

He ordered the killing of humans because of an assumption? What the shit. Just walk over there and ask the bloke what he's doing, or investigate after they left, or throw in a flash grenade and disable, shoot the legs not the heads. Anything but kill. What are they thinking? That their chances of survival are higher if they kill the enemy combatants before they can kill them? Is this really what it boils down to? Thi…

>He ordered the killing of humans because of an assumption? What the shit. Just walk over there and ask the bloke what he's doing, or investigate after they left, or throw in a flash grenade and disable, shoot the legs not the heads. Anything but kill. What are they thinking?

Well, what they were thinking was "if I walk over there and they're enemy combatants, they'll probably try to kill me", and "despite popular misconceptions, a shot to the leg is easily fatal", and "I don't want to die".

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#83

Post by bane »

gburt wrote: post #80
bane wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to the hot harsh reality of war. Let us know when you realize that sometimes people lie. Your questions about other nicer approaches have been answered literally on the bodies of tens of millions of dead. Humans are extraordinarily deadly apex animals, and they'll go through unbelievable amounts of trouble to avoid getting hurt or killed themselves. The guys planting the bomb are doing that because they know…

And yet, maybe those men were actually farmers, producing an irrigation ditch to produce the food they need to feed their families. War terrible or not, whether your side believes it is righteous or not, is an us vs. them endeavor: there is no absolute right, both parties assume they are the righteous. A moral human does not get himself in a situation where he has to make such a decision. I've never killed anyone and…

They might indeed just be regular folk out digging out a block in their irrigation.

This is why nobody wins in war.

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#84

Post by AdeptusAquinas »

swatow wrote: post #77

I find it very strange that people talk about soldiers as if they had some special moral responsibility for what happens during a war. Sure, they should be thinking about the implications and ethics of their actions, as we all should, and yet they also signed up to serve the nation, and to do what their nation thought necessary and just. Do people think that democratic nations should not have armies, and it is an eth…

Too true. This quote from the article reinforces that "Despite the rhetoric I internalized from the newspapers back home about why we were in Afghanistan, I ended up fighting for different reasons once I got on the ground — a mix of loyalty to my Marines, habit and the urge to survive."

It's that rhetoric, created by almost everyone BUT soldiers, that sends them to war. And, especially in nationalistic countries where soldiering is viewed as some kind of heroism, no doubt leads to poor decisions once they arrive and face the reality of the situation.

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#85

Post by sebastianconcpt »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #39
mrottenkolber wrote: post #25

He ordered the killing of humans because of an assumption? What the shit. Just walk over there and ask the bloke what he's doing, or investigate after they left, or throw in a flash grenade and disable, shoot the legs not the heads. Anything but kill. What are they thinking? That their chances of survival are higher if they kill the enemy combatants before they can kill them? Is this really what it boils down to? Thi…

This is war. A place of snap decisions, unfortunately. Sure, I personally would like US soldiers, or for that matter my own country's soldiers, to wage war like United Federation of Planets - diplomacy, diplomacy, and if that fails, set phasers to stun. But we don't have phasers. Nowdays, if you run at your enemy with a taser, you'll get shot to death before you're halfway there. I'm not defending the atrocities many…

"you can't blame soldiers for using lethal force against a perceived lethal threat."

Did you realise how that phrase is incredibly dangerously close to this other one:

"You can't blame a Government for preventively imprison or kill someone because some of its bureaucrat has perceived threat" ?

You bliss the first one and you have nothing left to contain the other one from happening

Unless you are a believer of the capability to self-refrain of an ever expanding Government.

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#86

Post by Bahamut »

bane wrote: post #76
TeMPOraL wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could use some serious development in non-lethal weapons, but I'm afraid it might not solve anything - non-lethal weaponry is by definition more complicated by lethal, and thus any technology designed to stun could be repurposed to kill with more effectiveness than the bloodless variant. We'd probably need to reach the level when there would be no practical difference of effectiveness between the two types.

One of the fascinating things to come out of the widespread distribution of non-lethal weapons to police has been two effects: 1 - police are more likely to use non-lethal weapons, even in cases where no weapon at all would work fine, because the long-term consequences of using a non-lethal are minimal 2 - in cases where people do die due to being attacked by a non-lethal weapon, there's generally quite a bit of mora…

It's tough to say - the public generally doesn't like talking about military engagements of war. I suspect they would generally remain apathetic.

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#87

Post by sebastianconcpt »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #47
[deleted] wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

If only that was so easy. What really happens is that some of the people who don't want to go get jailed or executed, and the rest quickly change their minds. And if you somehow managed to breed a whole nation of people refusing to kill others, then your country would quickly get invaded by another one. "Why don’t we live in the utopia dreamed of by sixties pacifists and their many predecessors? Because if we did, th…

Yes the State is an extortionist and if you are aware enough your moral system would lead you to explore alternatives really hard. For example preferring to personally try to be a Conscientious Objector[1] before buying the discourse of a guy with a tie that got elected in office to send you or your children to the front while having equity in the company that will get the contracts to rebuild the mess based on lies.

Dying defending your freedom is something very very different to justifying others people killing based on assumptions of threat after a preemptive war of aggression [2]

The only thing that can try to keep such an illusion consistent is Exceptionalism [3] which would magically give you self-serving moral superpowers.

Extrapolate that a little bit and you will see how Exceptionalism escalates to some form Elitist Dystopia [4]

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression [3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exceptionalism [4] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#88

Post by nl »

krschultz wrote: post #22
entrop13 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true that as society progresses it off loads the killing work onto fewer people - executioners, soldiers, drones, etc. These killings are presumably justified by the will of the larger society otherwise these men wouldn't be paid to do this. So a smaller part of the population does an increasing porportion of the killing, but does the overall number of people killed decrease?

We are certainly living in the most peaceful period since the start of the 20th century. For example, look what was happening exactly 100 years ago today: http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/firstworldwar/index... When was the last time there was a battle with thousands of causalities anywhere on earth? War hasn't gone away, but it has definitely declined. Surely it would be better if it were gone completely, bu…

I strongly agree that things are better.

But I think you are underestimating the violence that still exists. Others have mentioned the thousands killed in single battles in the Iraq war, but only slightly less recent is the Second Congo War[1], with over 350,000 direct deaths, and 5.4 million dead from disease and starvation directly caused by the war.

That war officially finished in 2003, but there are still spill-over conflicts (battles started this week to disarm one of the still-active militia).

In terms of proportion of the world population this is (of course) much lower than WW1 or WW2. But it's still a huge number of deaths, and we are mostly unaware of how large it is.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#89

Post by goodnights »

Retra wrote: post #78
goodnights wrote: post #74

No, you didn't learn to kill. You were selected because of your trust in authority and lack of responsibility. Soldiers shouldn't ask for permission to shoot, especially not "snipers". The whole thing is just a charade to enable diffusion of responsibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility

This is ridiculous. Soldiers aren't 'selected' for their trust in authority and lack of responsibility. And they are supposed to ask for permission to shoot. Especially snipers. I don't know where you got your information, but it wasn't from any experience with military. Hey, lets look at some US Marine Corps ROE documentation: "We must review all aspects of the fight, from weaponeering to the understanding of propor…

"I don't know where you got your information, but it wasn't from any experience with military."

I spent 15 months of conscription in one of those "small team, heavy backpack, green beret"-type units.

A sniper operates as part of a self-sustaining team to take down high value targets, often trough infiltration. It's self explanatory why a real sniper wouldn't ask for permission nor why no one would ever, despite what the movies tell you, tell them to "take the shot". Like in any high risk activity you are the one who is going to have to deal with the consequences of your actions and should therefor operate, as much as possible, at your own discretion.

These guys aren't snipers, they are sharpshooters on guard duty. They might as well be outsourced to some guy with a playstation controller in the future.

"Virtually everything the US military teaches is contrary to what you've stated."

I doubt that. On the other hand the US military isn't exactly known for being competent.

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#90

Post by tzs »

gburt wrote: post #80
bane wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to the hot harsh reality of war. Let us know when you realize that sometimes people lie. Your questions about other nicer approaches have been answered literally on the bodies of tens of millions of dead. Humans are extraordinarily deadly apex animals, and they'll go through unbelievable amounts of trouble to avoid getting hurt or killed themselves. The guys planting the bomb are doing that because they know…

And yet, maybe those men were actually farmers, producing an irrigation ditch to produce the food they need to feed their families. War terrible or not, whether your side believes it is righteous or not, is an us vs. them endeavor: there is no absolute right, both parties assume they are the righteous. A moral human does not get himself in a situation where he has to make such a decision. I've never killed anyone and…

> And yet, maybe those men were actually farmers, producing an irrigation ditch to produce the food they need to feed their families

I doubt that farmers in Afghanistan are idiots.

They will know that because farmers almost never work in the middle of the night digging right next to the road, and that bomber planters almost always work in the middle of the night digging right next to the road, that it is very very very dangerous to dig by the side of the road in the middle of the night.

Farmers who, for some bizarre reason, have decided that they want to dig an irrigation ditch right next to the road in the middle of the night are going to make sure that the Marines in the area know the farmers will be out at that location at that time.

The war has been a major part of the farmers' lives for many years. They know how it works.

Post reply on HN