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

The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 150 posts

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#101

Post by FpUser »

gatvol wrote: post #23
thematrixturtle wrote: post #2

> There were missile strikes so hasty that they hit women and children, attacks built on such flimsy intelligence that they made targets of ordinary villagers, and classified rules of engagement that allowed the customer to knowingly kill up to 20 civilians when taking out an enemy. Why is the article focusing on the goon pulling the trigger, as opposed to these actual killed-dead casualties?

Sounds a lot like war crimes to me.

They do not recognize ICC and had threatened sanctions and criminal charges should it ever decide to go after the US nationals

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#102

Post by strken »

elvis10ten wrote: post #41
thematrixturtle wrote: post #2

> There were missile strikes so hasty that they hit women and children, attacks built on such flimsy intelligence that they made targets of ordinary villagers, and classified rules of engagement that allowed the customer to knowingly kill up to 20 civilians when taking out an enemy. Why is the article focusing on the goon pulling the trigger, as opposed to these actual killed-dead casualties?

A bit off tangent: Why do we still use the phrase “women & children” in 2022 in times of war? That language seems to exclude men that aren’t involved. Why not innocent adults & children?

For much the same reason adult men between 18 and 60 are barred from leaving Ukraine at the moment: they're the primary pool of conscripts and recruits. When young men die it's never clear who was a non-combatant, while women are much less likely to be enemy fighters, and pre-teen children even less so.

If a drone strike kills five men, who knows whether they were enemy combatants? Your example is murky and vague, through no fault of the dead men. If it kills three kids under the age of 10 and two mothers, it's more obvious the casualties weren't combatants. If you're a journalist and you're looking for examples of clearly horrific drone strikes, you point to the one that killed people who were most obviously non-combatants.

I think you know this and you're asking a rhetorical question about the value of human life, but it's a question with a real answer. "Innocent adults" is a phrase less self-evident than "innocent women and children" because of the way militaries and insurgent groups recruit.

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#103

Post by FpUser »

Aeolun wrote: post #83
thematrixturtle wrote: post #2

> There were missile strikes so hasty that they hit women and children, attacks built on such flimsy intelligence that they made targets of ordinary villagers, and classified rules of engagement that allowed the customer to knowingly kill up to 20 civilians when taking out an enemy. Why is the article focusing on the goon pulling the trigger, as opposed to these actual killed-dead casualties?

I think the point of the article is that the current strategy causes needless casualties on both sides?

How about calling murder what it is.

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#104

Post by sokoloff »

kortilla wrote: post #80
sgjohnson wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What, you want a druggie at the controls of lethal weapons? I don’t care in slightest what someone does in their own time if it does no direct harm to anyone else. As long as he’s not under the influence on the job, I don’t care.

> As long as he’s not under the influence on the job, I don’t care. That’s a bit of a sticking point. Where do you draw the boundary of “under the influence”? Pilots are not allowed to fly planes if they have had alcohol in the last 24 hours, which is much longer than the standard for driving for “under the influence”. Would you consider someone who is actively going through heroin withdrawals to be fit to fly an air…

It’s 8 hours bottle-to-throttle.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.17

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#105

Post by gorjusborg »

revscat wrote: post #13
Fargoan wrote: post #6

I have no sympathy for the cowards who murder with drones. They know that what they're doing is wrong and nobody is forcing them to murder.

I do not know how to put it into words, but the simplistic morality expressed here makes me uncomfortable. While I also find remote controlled war to be abhorrent, nevertheless this attitude seems… overly simplistic?

I don't want to speak for you, but it alsi makes me feel uncomfortable, but I know why.

The 'detached black and white' view of the world us how we got here in the first place.

Clinging to moral absolutes and trying to frame real life in that rigid framework is a lazy/irresponsible way to be efficient. If you don't have to worry about the details (truth), decisions seem easier.

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#106

Post by Ekaros »

drno123 wrote: post #36

If we boycott Russian products, and do not hire Russian people, should we start doing the same with US products and american engineers?

We absolutely should, until they clear their house from top to bottom. Have trials run against anyone participating in these atrocities with jury being peers of the victims(that is those murdered). Treat anyone who has anyway participated or given money to the political parties or anyone who supported these actions as concentration camp guards from National Socialist Germany.

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#107

Post by Ekaros »

Fargoan wrote: post #6

I have no sympathy for the cowards who murder with drones. They know that what they're doing is wrong and nobody is forcing them to murder.

And I also have no sympathy for those who vote for or fund the people who allow or make these actions continue. They have as much blood on their hand and deserve the worst. Pure evil like that should not be allowed to exist free in this world.

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#108

Post by Larrikin »

rayiner wrote: post #91
woodruffw wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s a convenience phrase, meant to impart unambiguous innocence. But it’s definitely a little dated, in both directions.

It’s not “dated.” The mechanics of why you try to preserve the lives of women and children in war haven’t changed at all. I can’t imagine the thought process that says “humans have had a visceral reaction to the killing of women and children specifically in war, across millennia and across cultures, but surely such thinking is obsolete in our generation.”

People have owned people for generations, people discriminated against people based on how much melanin their skin had for generations, people have went to war with each other because they believed their person living in the sky was more correct for generations.

Doing things for a long time is never justification for thinking about them uncritically.

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#109

Post by muro »

FpUser wrote: post #101
gatvol wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds a lot like war crimes to me.

They do not recognize ICC and had threatened sanctions and criminal charges should it ever decide to go after the US nationals

I am a patriot, you made a mistake, they are war criminals...

It's "hilarious" when anyone in the US says about anyone else they are war criminals, since they don't recognise ICC. (Also, hello India and China)

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#110

Post by H8crilA »

In addition to the morality of such ops, keep in mind that those drones (such as the Reaper) are nearly useless against an opponent that has a proper air defense setup (SAMs). Having high price tags and carrying lethal weapons would make them a priority. Their only practical application is to "bully" an unsophisticated enemy. For example, had Russia tried this kind of a weapon against Kiev or Lviv then the s300 and Buks would have taken them out in a matter of minutes.

Also, thinking that a remote pilot has different level of empathy vs a pilot that's inside the aircraft is a little deranged from the reality of military operations. A weapon is a weapon, it is meant to eliminate/kill targets.

Post reply on HN