Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

41–50 of 150 posts

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

#41

> 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?

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

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same reason that the workers at slaughterhouses deserve pity. Even vegans understand they undergo PTSD and injuries to keep a machine going. No person is suited for these jobs.

I buy that argument maybe during a draft, but not for those volunteering for such duties.

People volunteer for a number of reasons, whether because they Want to be a part of a military machine or because it's the best way to pay for school. Either way they do so with some expectation that the intel is sound, that they're helping to protect America/American values, that they're attacking Threats and not random civilians. To have that trust & expectation violated can be traumatic, and nobody deserves that.

Even if they volunteered totally aware of what they would be doing and what would happen, it's one thing to Know and another thing to Have Experienced.

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

#43
post #13
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?

Of course it’s overly simplistic, it’s a thoughtless impotent rant borne from frustration. I do it myself from time to time, it feels good but doesn’t change anything.

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

#44

> 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?

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

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

#45
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would strongly prefer someone who takes mushrooms and MDMA occasionally behind lethal weapons. It indicates I can trust them to reflect on their own decisions. In fact, I have little trust in people who don't take psychedelics, unless I have very good evidence that they have explored the dark recesses of their minds by some other means.

In fact, I have little trust in people who don't take psychedelics, unless I have very good evidence that they have explored the dark recesses of their minds by some other means. Cool line, but I can't quite place it. Is that from Col. Kurtz's soliloquy in Apocalypse Now ? Or Gen. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove ?

I’ve watched Dr. Strangelove no less than 3 times and I don’t recall psychedelics ever being mentioned.

So it’s probably not Strangelove.

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

#46
post #38
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?

It seems this is a logical path that has now been set, doesn't it? I've been deeply ashamed of my own countries invasions, and wars along side the U.S. People didn't care about that though. Should we cancel ourselves, as we have done to Russia?

The problem is that the US has for a very long time pretty much unchecked global power. All our free-speech, what is it good for, if it cannot effect change? Look where Snowden is. Even the captain mentioned in the article pretty much told people what he did, and so is The New York Times now, but if people don't bat an eye what's the point? Heck the whole NSA spying thing was leaked something like 5 years before Snowden, and nobody cared.

I think most American's won't really care about what our government is doing to others thousands of miles away so long as we can buy our iPhones, watch our movies, and browse our TikTok.

I think the only practical thing that can be done is to encourage competition from America's equally-sized rivals (pretty much just China at the moment). That being said, these other countries are often not saints themselves (looking at you China), but competition is really the only thing that can check the abuse from any single party. While there are smaller "better" countries they are still within America's sphere of influence and even if you move there and avoid contributing to US taxes, you still end up contributing to that ecosystem that essentially powers the American system (most US allies participated in the war in the middle east).

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

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a world ... imagine a united states in which people just respect this simple moral of not killing people by any means for any reason. Just imagine.

Imagine a world where the US navy doesn’t sail all seas, where there are no US troops around the world, no NATO or Military Industrial Complex. That’s not a world that I, as a Westerner, would want to live in.

The alternative to the US-led global order is a global order led by some Chinese-Indian-Russian alliance.

That’s definitely not a world I’d want to live in.

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

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I buy that argument maybe during a draft, but not for those volunteering for such duties.

These are well paying jobs with health insurance and benefits. It's not simple to switch jobs without the requisite degrees or skills. Referring to working a job as "volunteering" is incredibly naive.

[deleted]

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

#49
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?

Seeing as the US are war criminals that refuse to be judged and committed unspeakable and uncountable atrocities over the past few decades...YES

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

#50
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I buy that argument maybe during a draft, but not for those volunteering for such duties.

People volunteer for a number of reasons, whether because they Want to be a part of a military machine or because it's the best way to pay for school. Either way they do so with some expectation that the intel is sound, that they're helping to protect America/American values, that they're attacking Threats and not random civilians. To have that trust & expectation violated can be traumatic, and nobody deserves that.…

> Either way they do so with some expectation that the intel is sound, that they're helping to protect America/American values, that they're attacking Threats and not random civilians.

With the amount of information that's been released in the last few years, it's bonkers that anyone going into this and having done a limited amount of study won't be aware that shooting civilians is part of the job. It's quite unrealisitic to have such an expectation really.

> Even if they volunteered totally aware of what they would be doing and what would happen, it's one thing to Know and another thing to Have Experienced.

True. But if they volunteer aware that they'll be killing innocents. It seems kind of insane that they deserve any level of sympathy regardless of what they experienced.

Post reply on HN