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

71–80 of 150 posts

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

#71

Post by MarcoZavala »

sgjohnson wrote: post #45
CamperBob2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No post body was provided.

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

#72

Post by pvaldes »

goldenkey wrote: post #35
torbTurret wrote: post #34

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.

volunteering can mean working for free but also 'willing to do the job', 'applying for the job'.

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

#73

Post by karlmedley »

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?

Men are presumed to be combatants https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/handle/11375/24294

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

#74

Post by fit2rule »

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?

No post body was provided.

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

#75

Post by watwut »

erklik wrote: post #53
chrischen wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Snow…

> That being said, these other countries are often not saints themselves (looking at you China). Depends on who you are, isn't it? Ask the Chinese. I am sure they love their government (I believe surveys have shown that there is high level of approval) Ask the Afghans. The Chinese aren't bombing weddings and schools. Ask the Yemenis. The Chinese aren't funding the Saudis which are causing a man-made famine in their n…

There is genocide going on in China committed by China right now. I mean seriously, it is possible to criticize USA without whitewashing genocides around the world. If you bothered.

And that exact whitewashing of China, Russia is what weakens your point.

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

#76

Post by kortilla »

erklik wrote: post #50
Jarwain wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unreali…

> 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 via their social circles. So unless they came from an anti-military household or anti-military material was popular in their social media, they are absolutely not “aware they’ll be killing innocents”.m

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

#78

Post by watwut »

throwaway15908 wrote: post #52
sgjohnson wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No one is born as your foe, they gradually become it. Fleeing into "but imagine what china would do" is exactly that, its creation. Tracing the cirlce of violence back you can only state, that it has always been this way but that is also just a weak excuse of affective apes.

Are you assuming that literally everyone except Americans is purely reactive with no own ambitions and ideologies?

That is incredibly arrogant look at the world.

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

#79

Post by throwaway0a5e »

elliotloglog wrote: post #66

> Starting in 2015, the Air Force began embedding what it called human performance teams in some squadrons, staffed with chaplains, psychologists and operational physiologists offering a sympathetic ear, coping strategies and healthy practices to optimize performance. “It’s a holistic team approach: mind, body and spirit,” said Capt. James Taylor, a chaplain at Creech. “I try to address the soul fatigue, the existent…

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.

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

#80

Post by kortilla »

sgjohnson wrote: post #17
Animats wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> 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 airplane and control missiles?

Post reply on HN