The Drone Papers • Hacker News Board

Re: The Drone Papers

#91

Post by j2kun » Thu, Oct 15, 2015, 6:58 PM UTC

bediger4000 wrote: post #86

rhino369 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Motive is the big reason. It's not like America is killing people for fun or some petty economic gain. America is killing people that American believes they are at war with. Hell, America is killing people who believe themselves to be at war with America. But drones only work when you have total air supremacy. Any halfway decent airforce can protect against the huge drones America fires missiles from.

It's not like America is killing people for fun or some petty economic gain. How do we know this, again? The folks who have said this are legally bound not to say anything else. So they're not particularly believable. The Snowden revelations about PetroBras hacking somewhat (but not totally, admittedly) makes me very suspicious that network penetration goes on for petty economic gain. Why wouldn't that leak into dron…

You could suppose there is an insane person in our government who is killing for fun, but that has all the usual logical pitfalls of a conspiracy theory.

As for economic gain (not sure what is meant by "petty" economic gain), that has been a large part of the source of most international conflicts over the past few hundred years anyway. So that just sounds false.

Re: The Drone Papers

#92

Post by rhino369 » Thu, Oct 15, 2015, 6:59 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #48

This phrasing is incorrect: > [there are x persons] President Obama ha[s] authorized U.S. special operations forces to assassinate US special ops are the President's weapon. It doesn't make sense to say "yesterday I authorized my gun to kill a man"; what you want to say is "yesterday I killed a man". President Obama didn't "authorize targeted killings" or whatever you want to call those. He (and Bush before him) assa…

The huge false equivalence you are making is Obama is waging a war against a truly evil organization. But the college shootings are senseless violence purposely used on innocent people.

You can throw in the hospital attack. But that attack obviously wasn't purposeful. It also wasn't a drone. It was ground support strike, something Obama wouldn't be involved in.

You can blame Obama for keeping us in the war. In that respect he is responsible. But the hospital was bombed during a major battle against the Taliban, who were attempting to take the 5th largest city in Afghanistan.

Obama is trying to kill people to make the world better. People like the Umpqua shooter are killing good people to make the world worse, on purpose.

Re: The Drone Papers

#93

Post by e12e » Thu, Oct 15, 2015, 7:01 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #31

praptak wrote: post #12

Hm. So what stops US from targeted killings in China? Russia? Europe? Only the probable retaliation?

Motive is the big reason. It's not like America is killing people for fun or some petty economic gain. America is killing people that American believes they are at war with. Hell, America is killing people who believe themselves to be at war with America. But drones only work when you have total air supremacy. Any halfway decent airforce can protect against the huge drones America fires missiles from.

> Motive is the big reason. It's not like America is killing people for (...) some petty economic gain.

Is that so? And what do you base that idea on? [ed: I see a more charitable reading of your statement is possible - I do not believe it is for petty economic gain no. More like deciding the future of the world economy and access to/control over natural resources.]

> (...) drones only work when you have total air supremacy. Any halfway decent airforce can protect against the huge drones America fires missiles from.

Very important point. Committing war crimes with drones in Yemen is like shooting fish in a barrel. Except of course for all the dead kids.

It's perhaps more interesting what kind of precedent this sets for inevitable proxy wars across the Middle East and Africa -- when cruise missiles, drones etc fired by Chinese/Russian contractors kill US/NATO contractors.

Re: The Drone Papers

#94

Post by kafkaesq » Thu, Oct 15, 2015, 7:03 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #48

This phrasing is incorrect: > [there are x persons] President Obama ha[s] authorized U.S. special operations forces to assassinate US special ops are the President's weapon. It doesn't make sense to say "yesterday I authorized my gun to kill a man"; what you want to say is "yesterday I killed a man". President Obama didn't "authorize targeted killings" or whatever you want to call those. He (and Bush before him) assa…

The same day of the Umpqua College shooting (10 dead), US drones in Afghanistan targeted a hospital and killed 22 people (12 staff, 10 patients including 3 children).

Deplorable though it was, the Kunduz hospital strike was done by an AC-130, not drones. Also, it was not, by any stretch, a "targeted killing" in the sense of the attacks targeting specific individuals that the article addresses. It had absolutely nothing to do with that program, in fact.

If you want to hyperbolize, make apples-to-oranges comparisons, and beat your chest about things you can't really do much about from behind a keyboard, that's fine. But please try to get your basic factual narrative straight.

Re: The Drone Papers

#95

Post by rhino369 » Thu, Oct 15, 2015, 7:05 PM UTC

yuvadam wrote: post #89

rhino369 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Motive is the big reason. It's not like America is killing people for fun or some petty economic gain. America is killing people that American believes they are at war with. Hell, America is killing people who believe themselves to be at war with America. But drones only work when you have total air supremacy. Any halfway decent airforce can protect against the huge drones America fires missiles from.

There is no such thing as a war between a country and a person.

There is such a thing as a war between a country and an army of people. Attacking a member of that army isn't going to war against a person.

Re: The Drone Papers

#96

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Oct 15, 2015, 7:11 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #31

praptak wrote: post #12

Hm. So what stops US from targeted killings in China? Russia? Europe? Only the probable retaliation?

Motive is the big reason. It's not like America is killing people for fun or some petty economic gain. America is killing people that American believes they are at war with. Hell, America is killing people who believe themselves to be at war with America. But drones only work when you have total air supremacy. Any halfway decent airforce can protect against the huge drones America fires missiles from.

> It's not like America is killing people for (...) some petty economic gain. America is killing people that American believes they are at war with. Hell, America is killing people who believe themselves to be at war with America.

Bujać - to my, panowie szlachta...

    O, my untutored simple friend, 
    mate from this land, or other land! 
    Know that the bells for these alarums 
    kings strike, with girls with ample charms, 
    Know it’s all hogwash, lies perverted, 
    And when these call out: ‘Shoulder arms!’ 
    That somewhere from the ground oil spurted, 
    With dollars soiling the bright colours; 
    That in their banks there’s something rotten, 
    They smelled some moneybags, it looks, 
    Or cooked some scheme, the oily crooks, 
    For higher import tax for cotton. 
    
    Drum on the pavement with your gun! 
    Ours the blood, the oil is theirs! 
    And through each capital and town 
    Scream out, to guard your cash blood-won: 
    ‘Tell us another, noble sirs!’.

-- Julian Tuwim - Do prostego człowieka (To the Simple Man).

http://www.antoranz.net/CURIOSA/ZBIOR7/C0710/20071014-QZM020...

Re: The Drone Papers

#97

Post by rhino369 » Thu, Oct 15, 2015, 7:11 PM UTC

bediger4000 wrote: post #86

rhino369 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Motive is the big reason. It's not like America is killing people for fun or some petty economic gain. America is killing people that American believes they are at war with. Hell, America is killing people who believe themselves to be at war with America. But drones only work when you have total air supremacy. Any halfway decent airforce can protect against the huge drones America fires missiles from.

It's not like America is killing people for fun or some petty economic gain. How do we know this, again? The folks who have said this are legally bound not to say anything else. So they're not particularly believable. The Snowden revelations about PetroBras hacking somewhat (but not totally, admittedly) makes me very suspicious that network penetration goes on for petty economic gain. Why wouldn't that leak into dron…

Because we are talking about the known drone strikes. We know, generally, where they occur and who they target. People in the tribal Pashtun-Pakistan area, Al Qaeta in Yemen, and Somalia.

If America is waging some secret economic war, it's been covered up extremely well. Spying is easily covered up. It's certainly possible. But that's hard to a reason to presume it's true.

Re: The Drone Papers

#98

Post by moskie » Thu, Oct 15, 2015, 7:18 PM UTC

meatysnapper wrote: post #70

AngrySkillzz wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. No one cares until its their kid or the neighbor's kid getting shipped off to some far away warzone. While I disagree with the draft on moral terms, I think pragmatically it is the only way to properly align the incentives of the populace against wars that don't matter. Otherwise, the government can wage whatever wars they want and no one will be that bothered (as we've seen).

This cannot be stressed enough. A robotic military allows the government to wage wars with impunity because the average voter just doesn't care. If you have skin in the game, it would be different. Perhaps a remedy for this would be to force the ranking members of congress to function as consuls, and make them live in Afghanistan for the duration of the conflict?

My problem with this perspective is that you're suggesting we go out of our way to put more people (US soldiers) in danger.

If we (the US, or the military, or what have you) determine that a certain military act is justified, I think the approach should be to do it in a way to minimizes the danger as much as possible.

I can't imagine going to a soldier (who might be your son) and saying, "Hey, so, we could do this with a drone, but we'd prefer instead to put your life on the line."

Re: The Drone Papers

#99

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Oct 15, 2015, 7:22 PM UTC

moskie wrote: post #98

meatysnapper wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This cannot be stressed enough. A robotic military allows the government to wage wars with impunity because the average voter just doesn't care. If you have skin in the game, it would be different. Perhaps a remedy for this would be to force the ranking members of congress to function as consuls, and make them live in Afghanistan for the duration of the conflict?

My problem with this perspective is that you're suggesting we go out of our way to put more people (US soldiers) in danger. If we (the US, or the military, or what have you) determine that a certain military act is justified, I think the approach should be to do it in a way to minimizes the danger as much as possible. I can't imagine going to a soldier (who might be your son) and saying, "Hey, so, we could do this wi…

It's a form of checks and balances.

Right now we can see that the more we can outsource the wars, the less public cares about them. Which incidentally also means the other side has to figure out a more drastic way to make us stop. Drones are terrorist-breeding machines.

Re: The Drone Papers

#100

Post by pjc50 » Thu, Oct 15, 2015, 7:29 PM UTC

mcphilip wrote: post #82

Logically, if the U.S. feels justified in targeted drone strikes against legitimate threats to national security, what's to stop China or Russia from doing the same? Arent there some legitimate scenarios where U.S. and Chinese national security interests are in opposition? Who has the "moral high ground", if such a thing exists, in such cases?

Well, this is basically what's now happening in Syria; the Russians are carrying out strikes on US-backed anti-Assad fighters using (among other things) cruise missiles launched from the Black Sea.