Confessions of a Drone Warrior • Hacker News Board

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#111

Post by jackpirate » Sat, Oct 26, 2013, 10:33 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #94

jackpirate wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blame for the cost of war doesn't go to to ... the people who pull the triggers. Yes, it most certainly does. I used to be a submarine officer in the Navy, but I was discharged 2 years ago as a conscientious objector [1]. I left because I felt I had a moral responsibility to do so. If your conscience says "don't kill someone," then you shouldn't kill them. You can't absolve yourself of responsibility just because…

Why did you join the Navy in the first place? Or did you come to realize your moral conflict only after you were already in?

After 5 years in the navy I applied for CO discharge. I was quite pro-military when I joined. It was what I wanted to be my whole life growing up.

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#112

Post by walshemj » Sat, Oct 26, 2013, 10:37 PM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #69

Perceval wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were reactions just like yours when the longbow was introduced in the 1300s. And again when the gun was introduced in the 1500s.

Those reactions were justified then, and reactions to drone warfare (several orders of magnitude more distance) are at least as justified now.

Well the Anti longbow fear was that some English middle class yeoman could defeat a (french) knight.

I can just see Saladins PR minster issuing self serving press releases about how these franks stand 200 yards away and shoot the lightly armourd cavalry to bits.

Though haven't heard of anti longbow campaigns it was Crossbows that there was an attempt to ban by the church - did you know the first war crimes trial dates from the 1300's

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#113

Post by Volpe » Sat, Oct 26, 2013, 10:40 PM UTC

gbags wrote: post #88

grey-area wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I felt your personal attack (now deleted in a stealth edit) stepped over the line. It's IMO fine to disagree and call viewpoints bullshit, but I don't think you should insult or speculate on the character and profession of other posters. Felt you deserved a response on it, and as to power trips over stupid points on a website - please!

"stealth edit" Oh go fuck yourself. I saw an utterly garbage argument, I responded quickly, then I edited it because my first draft had unhelpful content. "stealth edit" implies a perniciousness that simply wasn't present. > I don't think you should insult or speculate on the character and profession of other posters And I think that if somebody says that soldiers have no blame for war, that they're idiots, and it's…

Not to get too involved in this. But "stealth edit" just means you edited without mentioning it.

The general etiquette seems to be to put an "EDIT: " with either an addendum or an explanation of edits you made within your comment.

There is no implied perniciousness or anything, it's called that because you are effectively changing what people have responded to after their response.

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#114

Post by dm2 » Sat, Oct 26, 2013, 10:41 PM UTC

riggins wrote: post #29

Considering Bryant is one of the only operators speaking out, his conscience seems to bother him more than the average. Here's a comparison (an IAMA thread from reddit). http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1ghkm7/iama_drone_sens... Q: Have you ever had to strike a target that you were not comfortable with? sensor_operator: No, I trust our JTACs 1000000% they really know their stuff. While this was the top voted com…

The real problem in a mindset such as that is the situation when the ground and the operator both think that each other are doing due-diligence as to which targets to hit.

Remember this? http://worldblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2009/04/17/4376383-taliba...

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#115

Post by walshemj » Sat, Oct 26, 2013, 10:41 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #27

This is the future of warfare and it's a good thing. Way better than back when you would firebomb an industrial city or lob cruise missiles at poorly defined targets. No boots on the ground means none of our people at risk and drones are much more precise than bombs. The reactions in this thread demonstrate the classic uneasiness with killing a few people while being okay with killing lots of people. The people compl…

Yes if my farther had been in his house in Birmingham in the second world war I might not be here - the Luftwaffe was going for the almost next door spitfire plant.

Almost every European has family members who can recall ww2 and the area bombing which no civilian Americans experienced.

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#116

Post by xmonkee » Sat, Oct 26, 2013, 10:44 PM UTC

jackpirate wrote: post #110

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you help me understand something? The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is what keeps countries from launching nukes at each other. In order to have that doctrine in place, we need people in the military who are willing to launch nukes, and that military needs to be firmly under the control of the civilian government. In that context, was your objection to fire any nuke a personal decision, i.e. you pers…

I personally believe that Jesus calls us to "love our enemies" and that this means not killing them for any reason whatsoever. My personal objection to war goes far beyond the whole nuke thing to even self defense.

I fully agree with Jesus on this one, but sometimes I wonder what I would do in a situation where this belief was really challenged. I hope I don't have to find out.

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#117

Post by Volpe » Sat, Oct 26, 2013, 10:45 PM UTC

enko wrote: post #17

I couldn't finish this article. It just makes me too angry. Warrior? How dare anyone involved in this dignify themselves with such an honour-laden term. They're just murderers, and the fact they hide behind so many layers of technology just makes it all the more cowardly and despicable.

This is an odd argument. Guns are technology too, are rifleman just murders roo?

Any weapon is technology, so swordsman too?

Martial arts could right be considered 'technology', so the only people who are warriors are untrained people who fight... So we are talking Bar brawlers...?

Every soldier in the US military is hiding behind a plethora of technology layers... they completely outclass their opponents... yet you draw the line at drone pilots? (how are they any different from fighter pilots?... it's not like the US has ever engaged anyone capable of shooting them down)

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#118

Post by walshemj » Sat, Oct 26, 2013, 10:46 PM UTC

proksoup wrote: post #34

The worst human beings on the planet are the ones: 1) Building the guns/drones 2) Pulling the trigger of the guns/drones 3) Telling others to pull the trigger. No one in that chain is less responsible than the other.

so where does shooting a unarmed teenage girl who wanted an education come?

Or using human shields and violating the red cross /crescent both of which are war crimes not woo it's a drone so it must be bad

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#119

Post by dm2 » Sat, Oct 26, 2013, 10:53 PM UTC

jackpirate wrote: post #61

hooande wrote: post #48

Drones are just like any other tools of war. The fact that the combatant is sitting very far away from the battle doesn't make the killing any less real, the stakes any lower or the human cost to the operator any cheaper. War is hell because of the horrible decisions that have to be made. Distance doesn't make it any easier. Drones don't kill innocent non-combatants, people do. There are many cases of civilians being…

The blame for the cost of war doesn't go to to ... the people who pull the triggers. Yes, it most certainly does. I used to be a submarine officer in the Navy, but I was discharged 2 years ago as a conscientious objector [1]. I left because I felt I had a moral responsibility to do so. If your conscience says "don't kill someone," then you shouldn't kill them. You can't absolve yourself of responsibility just because…

Why couldn't you just change to a role that didn't involve directly killing someone?

What kind of job could you do after having a background in "press the button when it's time to nuke someone"?

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#120

Post by eshvk » Sat, Oct 26, 2013, 11:02 PM UTC

contextual wrote: post #31

rayiner wrote: post #27

This is the future of warfare and it's a good thing. Way better than back when you would firebomb an industrial city or lob cruise missiles at poorly defined targets. No boots on the ground means none of our people at risk and drones are much more precise than bombs. The reactions in this thread demonstrate the classic uneasiness with killing a few people while being okay with killing lots of people. The people compl…

classic uneasiness with killing a few people while being okay with killing lots of people. What a smug remark. And who is okay with killing lots of people? Citation please!

I am not sure if the OP phrased it properly but humans relate better to specific examples. This is why a little girl covered with napalm related burns has more of an effect in the media than 50,000 deaths [1].

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties#Deaths_c...