Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

111–120 of 150 posts

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

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence the problem was how to overcome not so much their conscience as the animal pity by which all normal men are affected in the presence of physical suffering. The trick used by Himmler--who apparently was rather strongly afflicted with these instinctive reactions himself--was very simple and probably very effective; it consisted in turning these instincts around, as it were, in directing them toward the self. So t…

Wow this is interesting. Is that a hypothesis or is that according to Himmler's own account?

I think it's a reasonable inference from a speech Himmler gave at Posen in October 1943. That speech was both frank and well-documented, and it was used as evidence in the Nuremberg trials, so Arendt must have been familiar with it.

Himmler speaks of the challenge of remaining a decent person despite witnessing and committing atrocities (the section around “Dies durchgehalten zu haben, und dabei – abgesehen von menschlichen Ausnahmeschwächen – anständig geblieben zu sein”), showing the kind of reversal at work that Arendt describes.

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

#112
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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the killing of women and children specifically in war, across millennia and across cultures, but surely such thinking is obsolete in our generation.”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.

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

In the same vein, something being old does not mean you can dismiss it out of hand. There is wisdom in thousands of years of human existence, and plenty of people have the hubris to dismiss it all.

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

#113

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 B…

If you’ve flown in a plane and flown a flight sim of the same plane you’ll understand the difference in visual acuity. A pilot in the seat has huge informational advantage over a remote pilot.

This informational advantage can and does influence decision making, go / no go scenarios.

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

#114

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 B…

> 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.

However, when supplanted by electronic warfare and decent intel, we've seen how Azerbaijan's TB2s destroyed a lot of Armenian SAM sites, without blinking. Even they took out a S300 site by marking it with a TB2 and destroying it with missiles.

So, it's not as clear cut as it seems.

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

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The air force really isn't interested in wasting multi thousand (or more) dollar bombs on people that don't deserve them and in a manner that just makes more people hate them and makes their job harder. They also aren't interested in burning out their teams of expensive professionals. Just because you're hearing about them address the latter doesn't mean they stopped caring about the former.

"The air force really isn't interested in wasting multi thousand (or more) dollar bombs on people that don't deserve them and in a manner that just makes more people hate them and makes their job harder." If only that were true, they wouldn't wage all of the senseless wars that the US has fought since WW2.

>If only that were true, they wouldn't wage all of the senseless wars that the US has fought since WW2.

Take your low effort trope and shove it somewhere unpleasant.

Of course the war machine is gonna war. That's what they do. You don't see Newport making their cigs kill their customers faster unless there's something in it for them. The air force is the same way. They might be in the death business but they're not gonna go around wasting bombs on people who are no threat to anyone unless they think that's how they're gonna accomplish their goal, which you can pretty much guarantee they don't after 'nam.

Are you really so blinded by ideology that you can't see that no military wants to spend resources in a manner that does not help them achieve their goal? Spending the fewest resources to get the most done while forcing your enemy to waste his is one of the most basic concepts in military strategy.

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

#116
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, in light of recent events, I think it’s mostly a matter of scale. Indiscriminately bombarding cities feels somehow worse than this targeted killing, and somehow better, because it’s nothing personal.

I mean... it is highly likely such events happened at much larger scale than the US public was made aware of in Iraq. How "precise" was shock and awe? I doubt the incentives are aligned for anyone to know. Even Obama had several instances of drone killings inadvertently killing large groups of civilians -- for example: https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/02/19/wedding-became-funeral...

Fallujah and Raqqa were pretty large scale destruction. The official civilian casualties were only in the thousands, but it's not like we dug up the cities afterwards to find all the bodies.

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

#117
post #101
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

More than that, we have pre-authorized military action against the ICC to extract any US detaniees.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...

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

#118
post #113

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 B…

If you’ve flown in a plane and flown a flight sim of the same plane you’ll understand the difference in visual acuity. A pilot in the seat has huge informational advantage over a remote pilot. This informational advantage can and does influence decision making, go / no go scenarios.

[deleted]

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

#119

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 B…

> 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. However, when supplanted by electronic warfare and decent intel, we've seen how Azerbaijan's TB2s destroyed a lot of Armenian SAM sites, without blinking. Even they took out a S300 site by marking it with a TB2 and destroying it with missiles. So, it's not as clear cut as…

Ok, yes, you can plan a modern mission where this kind of equipment, alongside some electronic warfare, other crafts and good intel, results in a success against a high level enemy. You are right. Although a good old f16 or f18 would be a lot more useful in such a role

I just meant to say that something like "we fly this drone, alone, here, make a quick kill and come back" only works against very under-armed military groups. Ukraine, as an example, is well above that level of defense.

Also, I am eagerly awaiting reliable information on how did it happen that TB2s were such a force against Russian tanks. I suspect extreme levels of Russian bardak while covering their own forces with air defense layers.

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

#120
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With the amount of information that's been released in the last few years > But if they volunteer aware that they'll be killing innocents. We’re talking about 18 year old kids who are absolutely not well-informed and their knowledge about the military will be what the recruiter tells them. Most seniors exiting high school have approximately no critical thinking ability. They just parrot ideas ingrained into them vi…

> We’re talking about 18 year old kids who are absolutely not well-informed and their knowledge about the military will be what the recruiter tells them. I mean there weren't front-page news stories about the US bombing weddings and schools in the past few years? I am not sure we should be underestimating 18yos that much. They don't need critical thinking skills to know that America has bombed kids and schools and we…

The pilot here flew between 2013 and 2018. The drone strikes he conducted were the ones that made front-page news for bombing weddings and schools. Does that make him worthy of your empathy?
Post reply on HN