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

81–90 of 150 posts

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

#81

Post by throwaway0a5e »

chrischen wrote: post #67
erklik wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Approval is moot, as US presidential approval is rarely that high, but most Americans will probably support their government over a foreign one, as most people will support their own government (it's only rational). I think China is big enough that it operates in much the same way as any large organization... that is to say it will be doing so many things that there will be plenty to disapprove of. Whether they do mo…

>but they think America is equally as bad... whereas most Americans are ignorant of our own problems.

Takes more than a small serving of cognitive dissonance to say that here. We can't talk about anything but the most narrowly scoped niche technical subject without a bunch of people having a circle jerk about how America is doing it wrong/evil/should be more like (rich western) Europe/etc.

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

#82

Post by ajsnigrutin »

mattzito wrote: post #5
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?

Did you read the whole article? It actually covers a scenario where the wrong person was killed-dead due to some bad intel. In fact, the whole point of the article is that there's a population of people who got lied to and manipulated in order to kill people whose culpability was questionable at best. This is a completely valid journalistic subject, separate from the people who were killed.

> there's a population of people who got lied to and manipulated in order to kill people

Who isn't manipulated in situations like this?

Remember Iraqi soldiers killing babies? And Iraq having weapons of mass destruction? The first to get manipulated are always the general public.

After that it just matters who does the killing... if it's "our guys", then every bombed wedding and reuters reporter is foreing militant or a terrorist, and if it's "them", then it's a poor civilian. If you bomb a hospital, a civilian train, bus, building, bridge or whatever... again, if it's "our guys" it was "bad intel" or "a mistake", but if it's "them", it's "war crimes for intentionall killing civilians".

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

#83

Post by Aeolun »

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?

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

#84

Post by pmoriarty »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #79
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.

"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.

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

#85

Post by erklik »

kortilla wrote: post #76
erklik wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 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 weddings and stuff in the past willy-nilly. Also, 18yo won't be going onto a drone the day after. This happens after years of training and remaining in the military, is it really fair to plead ignorance after all that?

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

#86

Post by erklik »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #60
erklik wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This is a pretty "hot" take. The Chinese government are funding/supporting all kinds of unsavoury things all around the world (yes, the same way as the US does), in addition to the political abuse that is doled out domestically (Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Shanghai, and depending on your definition of "domestic", the constant threats of invasion aimed at Taiwan).

> around the world

I am curious. What conflicts or wars is the Chinese governemnt funding around the world or is involved in? Who are the Afghans or Yemenis of the Chinese government?

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

#87

Post by nonrandomstring »

The obvious quote apropos here is Max Frisch "Technology is a way of organising the world so that we don't have to experience it.", which I probably cite a bit too often. But I'll offer a quote from Digital Vegan which I think is not out of place here, and I hope conveys a deeper message;

"" An immanent problem with enabling technologies, is that they enable all connected parties and carry their values. Stare into the abyss, and the abyss stares back at you. When picking up a technological tool you had better know what it is for. What is connected to the other side of it? And you should do so with the intent of mastering it, and using it kindly. As Andre Loesekrug-Pietri, a founder of European JEDI ('The European DARPA') project put it, unless the people of Liberal democracies take control of technology "other people or other political systems will impose their values on us". ""

The rationale for remote weapons is risk reduction. Despite the apparent diffusion of responsibility and decoupling of action and consequences, the operator remains connected to the target. Blurry pixels turning red on a screen are still lives being extinguished. Unless you have a generally low IQ and very poor emotional intelligence that fact is still inescapably bound to your actions and will haunt you as if you had seen the whites of their eyes and body parts. Indeed the trauma may be worse, because you now have to fill in the gaps with your imagination, somewhere between dispassionate official EKIA reports and gruesome media accounts. You'll never know, and so you'll never get closure. Each technological action has an equal and opposite reaction.

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

#88

Post by d0mine »

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?

Because it is how propaganda works: dehumanize the enemy, and the opposite for your side: make your hangman as human as possible. It is aimed at people who don't believe there were no war crimes and therefore the spin is necessary to get sympathy for the killers.

A similar spin was with the Abu Ghraib: torturers were humanized and their victims dehumanized.

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

#89

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#90

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN