Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Confessions of a Drone Warrior

gq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 172 posts

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#91

Post by netcan »

anologwintermut wrote: post #42
netcan wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Most people's definition of a terrorist attack" is any violence they don't believe in. It's a pejorative, not a description. Lets not do that fake objectivity thing here. The somewhat objective definition of terror attacks is no longer in use.

A question: are the double taps which allegedly end up killing rescuers meant to cause terror? I've seen these referenced by some sources claiming this, but I have never seen an alternative explanation, which makes me slightly skeptical. It's one thing to kill people you are at war with(even if it's an odd war), it's another to intentionally terrorize civilian populations to not help your targets. The later, if it's…

Possibly. That's not directly related to my point though. I'm not saying that these drones strikes should (or shouldn't) happen. I'm just talking about the word. I don't think it's helpful these days to people who want to have a rational discussion. There is no "most people's definition" that we rationally

But fear has always been used in war. Civilians have always been affected by war. Our armies aren't champions that go out and duel to decide our quarrels.

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#92

Post by myko »

D9u wrote: post #89

military drones, a projection of American power that won’t risk American lives. Yet burning some Muslim books places Americans at risk? I'd say that the collateral damage caused by "Signature Strikes" is as an effective terrorist recruiting agent as is burning some old religious books.

> I'd say that the collateral damage caused by "Signature Strikes" is as an effective terrorist recruiting agent as is burning some old religious books.

This is your opinion, but I think you are wrong. The most tense times as a coalition soldier in the Middle East for me were shortly after some idiot burned Korans (in Florida?). This pissed every civilian off.

When a lone soldier went off his rocker and heinously killed a bunch of civilians the only civilians that were upset were those related to the dead and some who lived in the same area.

This is anecdotal but I really got the impression that burning 'old religious books' was a much bigger deal to far more people (at least in Afghanistan) than even randomly, purposefully, killing of someone of another tribe.

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#93

Post by JabavuAdams »

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.

There is no honour in being a warrior. This concept is a vestige of our savage past. At best one could argue that it's a sometimes necessary function.

The problem is that in order to maintain the capability and infrastructure to deploy that function, and in order to offer some solace to the people we ask to carry out that function, we have to maintain the fiction that it's all very honourable.

Which leads to young people in some of the richest, most comfortable countries of the world actually volunteering to join the military, believing that they are doing a great service.

It's a despicable sham, and a horrible waste.

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#94

Post by ams6110 »

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

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#95

Post by ams6110 »

grey-area wrote: post #37
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.

Before you get too angry, consider that this experience is common of soldiers in war, not many of whom would after combat use terms like warrior. I doubt he chose the headline himself or was even asked about it, and it is contradicted by the tone of the article. There are far more important questions here than which labels are used to describe the people who carry out the killings. This one guy (part of the largest g…

Before you get too angry, consider that this experience is common of soldiers in war, not many of whom would after combat use terms like warrior.

Indeed, most of the people I hear glorifying war and the military in general have never seen combat. Most of the people I know who have seen combat, don't like to talk about it at all.

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#97

Post by belorn »

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…

Im not sure how responsible the US citizens are, when they are being intentionally misinformed about the war.

> asking if a child had just run directly into the path of their shot. “And he says, ‘Per the review, it’s a dog.’ ”

Its disgusting how casualties are being counted. Rather than own it up, and admit that both civilians and kids die in a war, they redefine children as dogs, and count all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#98

Post by phaus »

alan_cx wrote: post #63
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…

"Drones are just like any other tools of war. " No they are not. The are risk free and relatively cheap, meaning its easier to order their use. The easier war is, the easier it is to make war. "The fact that the combatant is sitting very far away from the battle doesn't make the killing any less real" Oh yes it does. There have been plenty of studies that clearly demonstrate this. It is always easier to press a butto…

>It is always easier to press a button that look a man in the eyes and shoot him.

I was a Soldier, I've never had to shoot anyone, but I strongly agree with this. I am 95% sure that I could shoot someone if my life depended on it, but I'm 1000% sure that I would have absolutely no problems launching a missile from a drone, while I'm safely located 1000s of miles away. Hell, video-games are one of the few things I've ever been talented at.

Now, just to clarify, I would have problems if it meant that innocent people would get caught in the blast, I was purely focused on the issue of killing someone that meant to do me or any other innocent person harm.

I also agree that its far too easy for a commander/politician to order a drone strike. Often, when the military decides not to take a particular action, its because the commander doesn't want to be responsible for sending a Soldier off to die. With drone strikes, the possibility of this happening is eliminated.

While I feel that our drone program is out of control, I also feel that it could be reigned in and used in a way that's both productive and ethical. We need to place a priority on preserving innocent life, even if it is difficult. If Soldiers are on the ground, in a fire-fight, its arguable that saving their lives may involve the loss of innocent lives. That's a sad reality of war. However, when the aforementioned Soldiers are sitting in an air-conditioned building, there is no ethical dilemma that could possibly justify collateral damage. We need to reign in the drone strike program, and reserve its use for the rare opportunities where we can take out a high value target without killing innocent people.

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#99

Post by JabavuAdams »

StavrosK wrote: post #68
kayoone wrote: post #19

This is the future of warfare, and i am afraid it will only get worse, much worse. In a decade or two tanks and soldiers might be remote controlled too, and between nations fighting their playstation-wars there will still be innocent civilians.

They just won't put their bases near civilians, because they won't need people to operate them. Then we can pretty much just designate some spots to put each other's base, defend those as well as we can, and war will be "whoever can destroy the other guy's base first, wins". Meanwhile, civilians are over there, just waiting for the game of Playstation to end.

Nonsense. War is about coercion. I want you to do this. You don't want to do it. So I hurt you until you change your mind.

If you care enough about an issue, you aren't going to let it be decided by a formalized game ... well, if you lose the formalized game. You are going to keep fighting at least until the cost outweighs the benefit.

Post reply on HN