Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins • Hacker News Board

Re: Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins

#101

Post by 6d0debc071 » Thu, Mar 12, 2015, 3:18 PM UTC

karmacondon wrote: post #21

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #2

It is always intriguing that people in the West are so sheltered from the fact that this has been going on for over a decade. And they then are, not surprisingly, surprised that the people at the receiving end of this and those that are from the area are very upset about it. What if some other nation had been bombing remote villages in your country whilst attempting to target "terrorists and extremists", but often ki…

The links you posted reference Iraq, which was not a very nice place over the last decade. In many cases, a strong personality would emerge as a local leader. He'll usually have access to several small arms and enough money to feed and pay several dozen militia fighters. To legitimize his power he'll coordinate attacks on US personnel, usually ambushes, and make deals with people who have connections to global "terro…

> Ceding large swaths of a country to random strong men doesn't seem like a sustainable solution.

Why? At least some of those local strong men are going to be amenable to your ideals. Support them with knock off equipment and let them conquer their enemies. If they become hostile after they've conquered their enemies, you can kill them then and iterate the process with someone else - though ideally you're using the spreading of their influence to spread your culture and dependencies on your support at the same time.

Re: Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins

#102

Post by 6d0debc071 » Thu, Mar 12, 2015, 3:20 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #51

Udik wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the US are the main cause for those bad guys being there in the first pace, as they waged war (with justifications that later proved worthless) against the dictator that was able to keep the area under control. So, what the US should do now in Iraq? I have no idea. What should they do in general and in the future? Stop messing with foreign countries, destabilizing governments and waging wars with the sill…

That's what we tend to do in fact. We support whatever dictator is in power because it's better for business. With Iraq we believed that they were still hoarding WMD's that they had from the 1980's. As we now know, that turned out to not be the case, and they actually did destroy them. Before the war, it was reported by most media outlets that WMD's were still in Iraq. Then you had the UN weapons inspectors who kept…

> With Iraq we believed that they were still hoarding WMD's that they had from the 1980's

That doesn't explain the necessity of the attack. If he'd had WMDs he'd had them since the 1980s and it's not clear why it was important at that point to remove a capability that had not caused us trouble in twenty years.

Re: Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins

#103

Post by melling » Thu, Mar 12, 2015, 3:21 PM UTC

astazangasta wrote: post #77

melling wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what we tend to do in fact. We support whatever dictator is in power because it's better for business. With Iraq we believed that they were still hoarding WMD's that they had from the 1980's. As we now know, that turned out to not be the case, and they actually did destroy them. Before the war, it was reported by most media outlets that WMD's were still in Iraq. Then you had the UN weapons inspectors who kept…

Your narrative is broken. What actually happened was a bunch of ideologues came to power, saw an opportunity to remake the middle east in aid of a "new american century", then lied about wmds to convince the public there were WMDs. The weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq because they were spying for the CIA. They were desperately invited back by Iraq to try and stop the war, to no avail, because WMDs were neve…

And the House and Senate just went along.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Of course, the major news agencies colluded to deceive the American public because they propagated the lie.

Re: Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins

#104

Post by knowaveragejoe » Thu, Mar 12, 2015, 3:22 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #71

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be a surprise to you, but it is the military who learned the most from Vietnam. It is the American public and our politicians who seem to have learned the least. The military is simply doing its job when presented with a task, whether it was spawned out of noble intentions or kneejerk reactionism. They know that they must be careful in pursuing anything that looks vaguely like a target, because the sentiment…

The military is simply doing its job when presented with a task That was presented as a defense of My Lai and was a not successful argument. The military is achieving far more value You're going to need to quantify this statement, because from this distance it doesn't look like much is being achieved at all. Yemen has fallen to the rebels and ISIS still hold much of northern Iraq. answers like "don't invade other cou…

> That was presented as a defense of My Lai and was a not successful argument.

I'm not sure how that's relevant. The "job" here being of far larger scope along the lines of "prevent future terrorist attacks". If you're the military presented with that task, you will go down generally the same route that US has, though perhaps without the same level of consideration for innocents.

The real "solution"(which is only in retrospect) is to identify the factors leading to extremism in the first place(American foreign policy) and change them. But that wasn't done, so here we are. Are you to argue that we simply stop trying to fight them on their soil? Instead we hope they don't retaliate?

> Absolutely not! It's a simple, clear, actionable, moral rule. It's also a core principle of international law. I'm not sure why this is so much of a problem.

I totally agree, but it's not applicable to the current situation. I'm not sure why people think this is a "solution" rather than a "yeah, we should have done that instead".

Re: Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins

#105

Post by hcarvalhoalves » Thu, Mar 12, 2015, 3:23 PM UTC

Since the drone was undetected, they could've have informed the ground patrol of the convoy heading their direction, kept the choppers in the air, followed the convoy, and acted as soon the supposed terrorists engaged. If the convoy really headed the patrol direction, they would even have intel from the ground.

The problem is that you have here a military force doing the equivalent of police work. They are on war mode, shoot first ask later, be on the "safe" side, which is incompatible with how you're supposed to work when you have civilians everywhere.

If civilian casualties mattered as much to high command as troop casualties (and it should, not only for humanitarian reasons, but also political), the decision making would be different. The US has one of the best military in the world, they have the technology and the means to avoid collateral damage, what they lack is a change in culture if they're going to act as a peace force.

Re: Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins

#106

Post by knowaveragejoe » Thu, Mar 12, 2015, 3:25 PM UTC

saiya-jin wrote: post #81

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be a surprise to you, but it is the military who learned the most from Vietnam. It is the American public and our politicians who seem to have learned the least. The military is simply doing its job when presented with a task, whether it was spawned out of noble intentions or kneejerk reactionism. They know that they must be careful in pursuing anything that looks vaguely like a target, because the sentiment…

nobody wants this war? are you kidding sir? there is a lot to earn on every single war, these one being no exception. All companies manufacturing weapons, ammunition, subcontractors etc. Stop wars, they are out of job. Is it utterly immoral? But yes of course. Is it clear to most people outside of US? Not much doubt there. Is this going to happen again? You bet it will. Why? Just because US can. There was not so long…

Did you stop reading immediately after the word "war" or something? I'm really shocked by the level of hivemindism on HN these days. I'm all for idealism but it really needs to be tempered with reality for any real progress to be made towards a better future with less war, more equality, etc.

Re: Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins

#107

Post by FD3SA » Thu, Mar 12, 2015, 3:26 PM UTC

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #80

tessierashpool wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So again, can you conceive a better alternative for dealing with reality as it is now? Of course I can. Learn some humility, diplomacy, and restraint. The military has no business in Iraq and needs to leave. Iraqis have said so countless times. You're assuming this is a military task. But I said "learn diplomacy." If your "reply" to a "learn diplomacy" comment assumes that this situation remains a military responsibi…

> Of course I can. Learn some humility, diplomacy, and restraint. Huh. The fact that there is a chain of command that this decision must pass sounds like the idea of restraint is not lost on these people. In fact it seems quite the opposite, that there is a directive for restraint. It's not up to the pilots and spotters, no matter how gung-ho they may be(many aren't at all, unlike what is portrayed in the article). T…

You are hopelessly mired by incorrect facts and perceived motivations.

Many posts above have alluded to this fact, but I'll repeat it since it may help you in the long run.

Neither of the two American wars being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq are for traditional reasons. There was no threat to the US. This has everything to do with the Military Industrial Complex, and its iron grip on American foreign policy.

The MIC requires war because that's how they sell their products. I would have expected that on a site like HN, this would be obvious. President Eisenhower prophetically warned [1] against the MIC, as he clearly saw how a positive feedback loop would form between private military contractors and US foreign policy, inciting conflict after conflict in order to keep customer demand high for their products.

Although you have obviously been thoroughly steeped in the propaganda offered by these two organizations, who could never acknowledge the truth of their actions, to any rational observer there can be no other justification. The US as a whole has everything to lose, and nothing to gain, by slaughtering defenseless civilians in an impoverished developing country.

Big defense contractors and the politicians they bribe, however, have everything to gain. And they are winning. This is one of the many failures of democracy, one that requires extreme oversight and prosecution. Sadly, we are primates, and we will succumb to our natures sooner or later.

1. http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Re: Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins

#108

Post by josefresco » Thu, Mar 12, 2015, 3:29 PM UTC

speeder wrote: post #99

josefresco wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Anarchic organizations are not well suited for a decapitation strike." You've been mislead if you believe ISIS and it's supporting factions are "anarchic" and don't have specialized training enough to cause disruption if personnel is lost. Along with the "guys in pickups" you see in the media, there are highly trained, well funded, experienced foreign and domestic soldiers taking part (on all sides).

Except the decapitation strike we are talking here are not about ISIS (That is another matter entirely now, they are effectively a state in many respects). We are talking about the places where drones are used in a controversial manner: Afghanistan, Yemen and some other countries few people heard about, in all those places, the enemies US are fighting are warlords, tribal leaders, and loose terrorist groups... They a…

"but they are like the Hydra"

Over simplification of the issue. We're not talking about a single organization with a single motive. We're also not talking about replacing cogs in a wheel. These are people, with skills and experience that they bring to their organization. Eliminating leadership, or even mid level leaders can cripple an organization both psychologically and in a practical sense as they loose expertise/experience/connections etc.

"the enemies US are fighting are warlords, tribal leaders, and loose terrorist groups"

This is actually a very accurate description of the ground level soldiers the US is fighting. These warlards, tribal leaders and terrorist groups are funded however by much larger nation-states and those individuals and groups with the funds to pursue their agenda.

Re: Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins

#109

Post by knowaveragejoe » Thu, Mar 12, 2015, 3:30 PM UTC

hereonbusiness wrote: post #84

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be a surprise to you, but it is the military who learned the most from Vietnam. It is the American public and our politicians who seem to have learned the least. The military is simply doing its job when presented with a task, whether it was spawned out of noble intentions or kneejerk reactionism. They know that they must be careful in pursuing anything that looks vaguely like a target, because the sentiment…

The beginning of the 21st century shall always be remembered as the moment humanity became really sophisticated at killing poor people who live in mud houses from far far away.

Realistically, I think that will be a footnote to the explosion of computers and the Internet - and not because the "winner writes history"(which is rapidly becoming moot as time goes on) but because in the grand scheme of things it's nearly inconsequential compared to developments in doing the exact opposite of killing. Your notion also ignores the fact that the reason this exists in the first place is partially the desire to eliminate collateral damage, not perpetuate more of it.

Re: Drones and the rise of the high tech assassins

#110

Post by tomaskafka » Thu, Mar 12, 2015, 3:32 PM UTC

outworlder wrote: post #59

I don't really think the drones are the problem. The problems are: - Lack of intelligence. The drone may be hovering overhead, but you still need local intel. Which is unrealiable - The weapons are not designed for the task. A hellfire missile is not the right weapon to target a single individual. There will be collateral damage unless the target is standing in a deserted area by himself. Also, while the hellfire may…

Neither of your arguments is the problem.

The real problem is a system, where it only takes three mutually self-assured groupthinkers, under stress, who have never seen a dead man, woman or child, to push a button and kill.

It might seem like unhappy accidents, but under these circumstances they are inevitable, and whoever set this system up should be judged and found guilty.

(The next level is that these systems grow this ugly exactly because there is no specific person responsible for that. The guilt is spread out thinly such that no one's moral sense is triggered. Exactly how the machinery of concentration camps worked, everyone is doing their job and at the end of the machine, people die).

I believe that only solution to this is to have a personal moral code, and if your higher ups are ordering you to do something that you know isn't right, fk the orders. But the army know this, and attracts losers that can be brainwashed so that belonging to army becomes their only way of life. Saying no to order then means being expelled from whole your life. So they rather press the button and kill twenty mothers in Afgnanistan.