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

U.S. Is Often Unsure About Who Will Die in Drone Strikes

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 60 posts

Re: U.S. Is Often Unsure About Who Will Die in Drone Strikes

#51

Post by graedus »

skywhopper wrote: post #18

I'm mostly depressed that the President only apologizes to the families and promises an investigation when it's American and Italian innocents who were killed. Hundreds of innocent Pakistanis, Afghans, Iraqis, Yemenis, and Somalis have been killed by US drones. And only the worst of those cases has even a mention been made of any review of policy or procedure. In summary: :(

No reason to apologize when it is only "combatants" who are killed, by the administration's definition.

"[...] Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent." [0]

So in the official language, a "military-age" male Afghan or Yemeni who is killed in a drone strike instantly transforms into a combatant by merit of being in a strike zone. Great.

[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in...

Re: U.S. Is Often Unsure About Who Will Die in Drone Strikes

#52

Post by wehadfun »

I cant criticize U.S. military policy while I sit in a temperature controlled office and write CRUD software.

The only thing I can criticize is the technology that makes it so hard for these guys to do their jobs. If Youtube can deliver 4K cat videos then the military with its $500 Billion per year budget should be able to deliver half decent videos.

Re: U.S. Is Often Unsure About Who Will Die in Drone Strikes

#53

Post by bane »

jjoonathan wrote: post #50
bane wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But drone strikes are far more common currently I here this from time to time, but I wonder how true this actually is. My guess is that most military actions are not publicly reported, so we don't have number to compare. My understanding is that there are a few ways to reach out and kill people from far away: - snipers - artillery - ground-to-ground missiles/rockets - air-to-ground missiles/rockets - ship-to-ground…

If we picture the political landscape of acceptable war tactics as a battlefield on which "war hawks" (seeking primarily to maximize military efficacy) and "peacenicks" (seeking primarily to minimize collateral damage) fight each other, then the items 1-7 on your list represent entrenched warhawk fortifications while the 8th represents a recent and relatively undefended warhawk raiding party. The peacenicks are attac…

But it also seems hypocritical. Because they aren't being attacked, are the other methods okay? In terms of raw brutality, drones are hardly the worst thing on that list.

Points about cost-per-life taken also ring hollow, the U.S. military budget is virtually unlimited, it's not cost sensitive in that kind of way.

Drones offer marginally more safety for operators, but no theater the U.S. is engaged in or is likely to be engaged in is likely to offer resistance to any of the other methods. And other methods also offer similar safety margins for operators. Ship-to-ground missiles for example, offer virtually the same risk as drones.

I'm not saying fighting drones is a pointless argument to make. Each of the methods is open to criticism, but by only attacking one, it reeks of a kind of protest fadism - of losing the plot. Is the problem killing people, or is the problem killing people with drones?

Here's an alternative scenario for why drones are actually popular with hawks, and it's not safety or direct cost: they offer vastly longer loiter time and better real-time surveillance over an area compared to any other method or group of methods, which means they provide greater targeting and attack opportunity on the off-chance a difficult to find target presents itself.

To go with your analogy, by not attacking the entrenchments, it signals to the hawks that it's okay to keep sending raiding parties, because they'll eventually end up fortified.

I appreciate this discussion by the way.

Re: U.S. Is Often Unsure About Who Will Die in Drone Strikes

#54

Post by cyphunk »

It seems strange to someone who is not living in the US or Israel how people can just say as this author does "By most accounts, hundreds of dangerous militants have, indeed, been killed by drones, including some high-ranking Qaeda figures."

It's as though the only thing that bothers the majority is that a terrorist didn't die but someone else. There is a clear divide from the rest of the world which still finds it strange to kill someone without declaring war or having a clear reason. And from the tone of this article i wonder if that divide isn't a lot further than i thought.

The idea of killing someone just because we think they are a threat... sounds like a sci-fi novel to the rest of us.

Re: U.S. Is Often Unsure About Who Will Die in Drone Strikes

#55

Post by Rawrshack »

cyphunk wrote: post #54

It seems strange to someone who is not living in the US or Israel how people can just say as this author does "By most accounts, hundreds of dangerous militants have, indeed, been killed by drones, including some high-ranking Qaeda figures." It's as though the only thing that bothers the majority is that a terrorist didn't die but someone else. There is a clear divide from the rest of the world which still finds it s…

>The idea of killing someone just because we think they are a threat... sounds like a sci-fi novel to the rest of us.

Not really a sci-fi novel. We've had all this before in a time and place called the Third Reich. Different methods, different Undesirables, same propaganda, same evil mass murdering government military apparatus.

Re: U.S. Is Often Unsure About Who Will Die in Drone Strikes

#56

Post by tzs »

chimeracoder wrote: post #42
skywhopper wrote: post #18

I'm mostly depressed that the President only apologizes to the families and promises an investigation when it's American and Italian innocents who were killed. Hundreds of innocent Pakistanis, Afghans, Iraqis, Yemenis, and Somalis have been killed by US drones. And only the worst of those cases has even a mention been made of any review of policy or procedure. In summary: :(

Just to drive home the point further, if it's a US citizen who gets killed, but that US citizen has an Arab name, no apology is apparently needed[0]. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a 16-year-old American boy, eating dinner at a restaurant in Yemen while searching for his father. Nobody denies that he was completely innocent, and even the US government simply says he was "in the wrong place at the wrong time"[1]. You'll al…

> We can also question why that place was "the wrong place", since (A) we're not at war with Yemen,

That's not really relevant, since the US drone program in Yemen was operating with the approval of the Yemen government.

Re: U.S. Is Often Unsure About Who Will Die in Drone Strikes

#57

Post by lostit2xx »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #25
lostit2xx wrote: post #22

Terrorists are unsure who will die when they set off bombs in shopping centers and street cafes.

You don't have the moral upper-hand if you stoop to their level.

They aren't stooping to their level, hence, the drones. Terrorists don't care who gets killed. Anyone will do.

Re: U.S. Is Often Unsure About Who Will Die in Drone Strikes

#59

Post by NateDad »

lostcolony wrote: post #7
NateDad wrote: post #2

Why do people single out drones? It's not like it would be different if there were a pilot in the thing. I guess it's just good old FUD.

Because they're concerned that the lack of a pilot, and thus, pilot risk, means the US is more willing to order attacks, since there is no political risk to themselves should something be shot down? Because they're concerned with the change in warfare this heralds, that we're moving to using technologies that explicitly and autonomously target civilian areas, and deciding who 'enemy combatants' are based on president…

They're not autonomous. They're piloted by a person. There's very little difference between looking at the screen in the cockpit to know when to drop the bomb, and looking at the screen in the control room.

Re: U.S. Is Often Unsure About Who Will Die in Drone Strikes

#60

Post by lostcolony »

NateDad wrote: post #59
lostcolony wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they're concerned that the lack of a pilot, and thus, pilot risk, means the US is more willing to order attacks, since there is no political risk to themselves should something be shot down? Because they're concerned with the change in warfare this heralds, that we're moving to using technologies that explicitly and autonomously target civilian areas, and deciding who 'enemy combatants' are based on president…

They're not autonomous. They're piloted by a person. There's very little difference between looking at the screen in the cockpit to know when to drop the bomb, and looking at the screen in the control room.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Yes, it is not truly autonomous, but the mindset of many of those interviewed in the areas we are conducting attacks is basically "death can come down from on high at any moment from clear blue skies". They're not viewing it as "soldiers sometimes come into our village and shoot at suspected terrorists and there are sometimes civilian casualties".

And the tendency is to keep moving to that; even now it's only 'soldier vs civilian' by technicality; as soon as we can replace the soldier at the viewscreen with an algorithm, we likely will.

Post reply on HN