The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/15/us/drones-airstrikes-ptsd.html
145 comments
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.
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.
To add, I find the parts which mention the people who were killed or otherwise affected by these strikes deeply moving despite being short and concise.
In other words, the painted picture is much broader and deeper than the man itself seemingly put into the focus. In reality, he's just used as an anchor point to tie the big picture, and might be also used as a so-called decoy (or bait) in a narrowly starting, but deeply expanding story. This doesn't make his tragedy lighter, however.
To be honest, I feel sad and disturbed for everyone involved in this.
In other words, the painted picture is much broader and deeper than the man itself seemingly put into the focus. In reality, he's just used as an anchor point to tie the big picture, and might be also used as a so-called decoy (or bait) in a narrowly starting, but deeply expanding story. This doesn't make his tragedy lighter, however.
To be honest, I feel sad and disturbed for everyone involved in this.
> 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".
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".
To be fair, in light of recent events, I think it’s mostly a matter of scale.
Indiscriminately bombarding cities feels somehow worse than this targeted killing, and somehow better, because it’s nothing personal.
Indiscriminately bombarding cities feels somehow worse than this targeted killing, and somehow better, because it’s nothing personal.
I mean... it is highly likely such events happened at much larger scale than the US public was made aware of in Iraq. How "precise" was shock and awe? I doubt the incentives are aligned for anyone to know.
Even Obama had several instances of drone killings inadvertently killing large groups of civilians -- for example: https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/02/19/wedding-became-funeral...
Even Obama had several instances of drone killings inadvertently killing large groups of civilians -- for example: https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/02/19/wedding-became-funeral...
Fallujah and Raqqa were pretty large scale destruction. The official civilian casualties were only in the thousands, but it's not like we dug up the cities afterwards to find all the bodies.
> 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
I'm pretty sure that's basically standard operating procedure in the military though?
Harder to get soldiers to kill people if they think of them as people and not as the enemy.
I'm pretty sure that's basically standard operating procedure in the military though?
Harder to get soldiers to kill people if they think of them as people and not as the enemy.
You are asserting a critical thinking skill that really, most folks don't have. You are John LeCarre, most are Tom Clancy.
hey whats wrong with tom clancy now? (except all that jack ryan trash)
Le Carre wrote about the fact that espionage or s an allegory for all human interaction) is "all gray" with lots of moral ambiguity and nuance. Clancy's stuff makes for a decent plot for an action movie adaptation, but his ideas and characters are almost all one-note, one-dimensional "popcorn" nutrition conceptually.
Hence the problem was how to overcome not so much their conscience as the animal pity by which all normal men are affected in the presence of physical suffering. The trick used by Himmler--who apparently was rather strongly afflicted with these instinctive reactions himself--was very simple and probably very effective; it consisted in turning these instincts around, as it were, in directing them toward the self. So that instead of saying: What horrible things I did to people!, the murderers would be able to say: What horrible things I had to watch in the pursuance of my duties, how heavily the task weighed upon my shoulders!
Hannah Arendt
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil
Hannah Arendt
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil
Wow this is interesting. Is that a hypothesis or is that according to Himmler's own account?
I think it's a reasonable inference from a speech Himmler gave at Posen in October 1943. That speech was both frank and well-documented, and it was used as evidence in the Nuremberg trials, so Arendt must have been familiar with it.
Himmler speaks of the challenge of remaining a decent person despite witnessing and committing atrocities (the section around “Dies durchgehalten zu haben, und dabei – abgesehen von menschlichen Ausnahmeschwächen – anständig geblieben zu sein”), showing the kind of reversal at work that Arendt describes.
Himmler speaks of the challenge of remaining a decent person despite witnessing and committing atrocities (the section around “Dies durchgehalten zu haben, und dabei – abgesehen von menschlichen Ausnahmeschwächen – anständig geblieben zu sein”), showing the kind of reversal at work that Arendt describes.
Himmler killed himself right after being captured, before being investigated right after WWII. So, safe guess is that it is hypothesis. It can not possibly be after war reflection.
Himmler was horrified and mentally affected after mass shooting he seen. So, he started to figure out how to kill Jews differently, out of worry for mental health of German soldiers.
So, the above is at best him figuring out how to kill more effectively. Definitely not some kind of guilt or regret.
Himmler was horrified and mentally affected after mass shooting he seen. So, he started to figure out how to kill Jews differently, out of worry for mental health of German soldiers.
So, the above is at best him figuring out how to kill more effectively. Definitely not some kind of guilt or regret.
[deleted]
These stories are not mutually exclusive, The New York Times covers a lot of the victims' stories too (and there was at least one daily podcast on the subject within the past few months).
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?
For much the same reason adult men between 18 and 60 are barred from leaving Ukraine at the moment: they're the primary pool of conscripts and recruits. When young men die it's never clear who was a non-combatant, while women are much less likely to be enemy fighters, and pre-teen children even less so.
If a drone strike kills five men, who knows whether they were enemy combatants? Your example is murky and vague, through no fault of the dead men. If it kills three kids under the age of 10 and two mothers, it's more obvious the casualties weren't combatants. If you're a journalist and you're looking for examples of clearly horrific drone strikes, you point to the one that killed people who were most obviously non-combatants.
I think you know this and you're asking a rhetorical question about the value of human life, but it's a question with a real answer. "Innocent adults" is a phrase less self-evident than "innocent women and children" because of the way militaries and insurgent groups recruit.
If a drone strike kills five men, who knows whether they were enemy combatants? Your example is murky and vague, through no fault of the dead men. If it kills three kids under the age of 10 and two mothers, it's more obvious the casualties weren't combatants. If you're a journalist and you're looking for examples of clearly horrific drone strikes, you point to the one that killed people who were most obviously non-combatants.
I think you know this and you're asking a rhetorical question about the value of human life, but it's a question with a real answer. "Innocent adults" is a phrase less self-evident than "innocent women and children" because of the way militaries and insurgent groups recruit.
An adjacent comment just responded with what I was gonna type.
> … All that's being pointed out here is that it can't both be the case that there are no relevant differences between men and women and also that a phrase like "women and children" is useful. You have to pick one.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31070960
> … All that's being pointed out here is that it can't both be the case that there are no relevant differences between men and women and also that a phrase like "women and children" is useful. You have to pick one.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31070960
I deliberately sidestepped that whole can of worms by pointing out that it's combat presence that matters, regardless of the cause. The relevant difference is how many of them are wearing a uniform.
I would not be more outraged if the Taliban killed an armed American servicewoman than a serviceman. If you would, then that's your opinion, but you should stand by it instead of attributing it to me.
I would not be more outraged if the Taliban killed an armed American servicewoman than a serviceman. If you would, then that's your opinion, but you should stand by it instead of attributing it to me.
I think it’s a convenience phrase, meant to impart unambiguous innocence. But it’s definitely a little dated, in both directions.
It’s not “dated.” The mechanics of why you try to preserve the lives of women and children in war haven’t changed at all.
I can’t imagine the thought process that says “humans have had a visceral reaction to the killing of women and children specifically in war, across millennia and across cultures, but surely such thinking is obsolete in our generation.”
I can’t imagine the thought process that says “humans have had a visceral reaction to the killing of women and children specifically in war, across millennia and across cultures, but surely such thinking is obsolete in our generation.”
It's a biological reality that's gotten lost in our modern world. It's kind of funny no one seems to blink an eye that women and children are allowed to leave Ukraine but men have to stay and fight. The idpol segments seem to think that trans men shouldn't have to stay and fight and that is the true outrage. Personally I think men (or any human being that chooses) should be allowed to flee. Honor shouldn't be enforced by the state.
Honour in this case is being imposed by the state, but Slavic cultures and national pride are 100% driving this too.
Some nations just won’t tolerate their men fleeing a crisis leaving women and kids behind, state or no state. Western Anglo/EU culture skews towards this, but not as hard.
Hence the broad support for them.
Some nations just won’t tolerate their men fleeing a crisis leaving women and kids behind, state or no state. Western Anglo/EU culture skews towards this, but not as hard.
Hence the broad support for them.
> “humans have had a visceral reaction to the killing of women and children specifically in war, across millennia and across cultures, but surely such thinking is obsolete in our generation.”
This sounds pretty much right at least as far as men vs women, though. If you truly want equal rights then that should come with equal privileges. Historically or evolutionarily, women were valued more in such a situation because they make babies - now, so what, we're clearly not running out of babies if you look at population trends. Either everyone fit to serve should have to stay or nobody should have to stay, not based on the circumstances of their birth.
This sounds pretty much right at least as far as men vs women, though. If you truly want equal rights then that should come with equal privileges. Historically or evolutionarily, women were valued more in such a situation because they make babies - now, so what, we're clearly not running out of babies if you look at population trends. Either everyone fit to serve should have to stay or nobody should have to stay, not based on the circumstances of their birth.
Ukrainians are very much running out of babies, desperately so in fact. Average Ukrainian woman has just 1.2 babies on average. You cannot make up for that shortage with Nigerian babies (of which the supply is high) any more than you can make up Ukrainian war casualties with Russian settlers moving in — or, I guess, you can, if you don’t care about Ukraine as a nation in the slightest.
I think you can imagine it :) Our culture conceives of a universal egalitarianism across all domains of human interest, but it hasn't really thought through all the implications of that, which is why a phrase like "woman and children" can still be used in an era where it's supposedly abhorrent to make those kinds of distinctions.
All that's being pointed out here is that it can't both be the case that there are no relevant differences between men and women and also that a phrase like "women and children" is useful. You have to pick one.
All that's being pointed out here is that it can't both be the case that there are no relevant differences between men and women and also that a phrase like "women and children" is useful. You have to pick one.
> Our culture conceives of a universal egalitarianism across all domains of human interest, but it hasn't really thought through all the implications of that, which is why a phrase like "woman and children" can still be used in an era where it's supposedly abhorrent to make those kinds of distinctions.
I think most people even in America embrace a pragmatic egalitarianism where they think it's okay for women or men to be lawyers or politicians, but men continue to have a unique role when it comes to fighting wars or fixing power lines in the middle of a storm, while women continue to have a unique role when it comes to reproducing the species.
I think it's a small minority who think the difference between 1930 and today is solely due to us being more enlightened about gender roles, and nothing to do with the fact that the primary achievements of that age had to do with things like building thousands of miles of highways, while the primary achievements of this age are quite different.
I think most people even in America embrace a pragmatic egalitarianism where they think it's okay for women or men to be lawyers or politicians, but men continue to have a unique role when it comes to fighting wars or fixing power lines in the middle of a storm, while women continue to have a unique role when it comes to reproducing the species.
I think it's a small minority who think the difference between 1930 and today is solely due to us being more enlightened about gender roles, and nothing to do with the fact that the primary achievements of that age had to do with things like building thousands of miles of highways, while the primary achievements of this age are quite different.
People have owned people for generations, people discriminated against people based on how much melanin their skin had for generations, people have went to war with each other because they believed their person living in the sky was more correct for generations.
Doing things for a long time is never justification for thinking about them uncritically.
Doing things for a long time is never justification for thinking about them uncritically.
> Doing things for a long time is never justification for thinking about them uncritically.
In the same vein, something being old does not mean you can dismiss it out of hand. There is wisdom in thousands of years of human existence, and plenty of people have the hubris to dismiss it all.
In the same vein, something being old does not mean you can dismiss it out of hand. There is wisdom in thousands of years of human existence, and plenty of people have the hubris to dismiss it all.
That’s a remarkable misinterpretation. What I meant by “dated” was that it’s no longer the case that women don’t serve in militaries. “Women and children” in a military context is historically a term to distinguish men (who can fight, or are expected to know skills that can help in a war effort) from everyone else.
Men are presumed to be combatants https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/handle/11375/24294
[deleted]
Your comment reminded me of this bit from Scottish comedian Frankie Boyle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZOLq82m2Ks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZOLq82m2Ks
Frankie Boyle. No man says it straighter.
The thing is they're not "goons". They're good, solid people. Who thought they were actually going to be saving lives, first by going after, you know, the Bad Guys. And then by using (what they were told was) "precision weaponry" to do so.
Why is the article focusing on [an uncomfortable but lesser-known side aspect of war], as opposed to [the more obvious bad aspects of war we already know about]?
Because war is what you call "complicated". It is this complexity that the article was attempting to address.
Why is the article focusing on [an uncomfortable but lesser-known side aspect of war], as opposed to [the more obvious bad aspects of war we already know about]?
Because war is what you call "complicated". It is this complexity that the article was attempting to address.
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.
A similar spin was with the Abu Ghraib: torturers were humanized and their victims dehumanized.
It’s also good for your psychological wellbeing. If you’re just ‘destroying goods’ so to say, you don’t really have to worry about the fact they have wives and children.
Conversely, what is described in this article is the worst of both worlds. After spending days looking at their lives you are most definitely killing a human/father/grandfather.
Conversely, what is described in this article is the worst of both worlds. After spending days looking at their lives you are most definitely killing a human/father/grandfather.
Sounds a lot like war crimes to me.
They do not recognize ICC and had threatened sanctions and criminal charges should it ever decide to go after the US nationals
I am a patriot, you made a mistake, they are war criminals...
It's "hilarious" when anyone in the US says about anyone else they are war criminals, since they don't recognise ICC. (Also, hello India and China)
It's "hilarious" when anyone in the US says about anyone else they are war criminals, since they don't recognise ICC. (Also, hello India and China)
More than that, we have pre-authorized military action against the ICC to extract any US detaniees.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...
https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...
Or indeed, the "customer" who is ordering that these dubious strikes go ahead.
Good question. My guess, the plight of a remote assassin just hit closer to home (no pun).
When America kills women and children, they are not humanized.
Institutional racism goes beyond borders.
Really now? I know Western newspapers like the NYTimes have become very, very enamoured with the military-industrial complex, and I get that, de facto, the US is at war, but why should anyone feel sorry for the people mentioned in the article, people whose mission is to kill some poor peasants herding their goats in the mountains of Yemen or who are attending a wedding somewhere in Afghanistan?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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
> 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
> 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?
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?
The pilot here flew between 2013 and 2018. The drone strikes he conducted were the ones that made front-page news for bombing weddings and schools. Does that make him worthy of your empathy?
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.
Referring to working a job as "volunteering" is incredibly naive.
[deleted]
volunteering can mean working for free but also 'willing to do the job', 'applying for the job'.
If those who repent of evil can't be forgiven then none of us have hope.
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.
"" 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.
> 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 existential questions many people have to wrestle with in this work.”
Just amazing to read this, I mean after hearing all about the innocent lives taken, and then to be presented with their attempts to optimize the teams involved with it.
“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 existential questions many people have to wrestle with in this work.”
Just amazing to read this, I mean after hearing all about the innocent lives taken, and then to be presented with their attempts to optimize the teams involved with it.
[deleted]
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.
If only that were true, they wouldn't wage all of the senseless wars that the US has fought since WW2.
>If only that were true, they wouldn't wage all of the senseless wars that the US has fought since WW2.
Take your low effort trope and shove it somewhere unpleasant.
Of course the war machine is gonna war. That's what they do. You don't see Newport making their cigs kill their customers faster unless there's something in it for them. The air force is the same way. They might be in the death business but they're not gonna go around wasting bombs on people who are no threat to anyone unless they think that's how they're gonna accomplish their goal, which you can pretty much guarantee they don't after 'nam.
Are you really so blinded by ideology that you can't see that no military wants to spend resources in a manner that does not help them achieve their goal? Spending the fewest resources to get the most done while forcing your enemy to waste his is one of the most basic concepts in military strategy.
Take your low effort trope and shove it somewhere unpleasant.
Of course the war machine is gonna war. That's what they do. You don't see Newport making their cigs kill their customers faster unless there's something in it for them. The air force is the same way. They might be in the death business but they're not gonna go around wasting bombs on people who are no threat to anyone unless they think that's how they're gonna accomplish their goal, which you can pretty much guarantee they don't after 'nam.
Are you really so blinded by ideology that you can't see that no military wants to spend resources in a manner that does not help them achieve their goal? Spending the fewest resources to get the most done while forcing your enemy to waste his is one of the most basic concepts in military strategy.
> Spending the fewest resources to get the most done while forcing your enemy to waste his is one of the most basic concepts in military strategy.
Not in modern asymmetric warfare. US could and did spend several magnitudes more resources than the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. I suppose the idea was to 'convince' the opponents to surrender by using overwhelming force. This mostly worked fine against conventional forces but not against less rational opponents who don't seem to value their lives that much (due to various reasons). Similar thing happened in Vietnam (of course there was a geopolitical component which dettered US from directly invading the north) US spent way more and did disportionately much more damage but still managed to lose the war in the end.
> not gonna go around wasting bombs on people who are no threat to anyone unless they think that's how they're gonna accomplish their goal
Well they might not had intentionally went after civilians, but a case might still be made that they weren't really as concerned about collataerel damage as they should have been.
Not in modern asymmetric warfare. US could and did spend several magnitudes more resources than the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. I suppose the idea was to 'convince' the opponents to surrender by using overwhelming force. This mostly worked fine against conventional forces but not against less rational opponents who don't seem to value their lives that much (due to various reasons). Similar thing happened in Vietnam (of course there was a geopolitical component which dettered US from directly invading the north) US spent way more and did disportionately much more damage but still managed to lose the war in the end.
> not gonna go around wasting bombs on people who are no threat to anyone unless they think that's how they're gonna accomplish their goal
Well they might not had intentionally went after civilians, but a case might still be made that they weren't really as concerned about collataerel damage as they should have been.
In addition to the morality of such ops, keep in mind that those drones (such as the Reaper) are nearly useless against an opponent that has a proper air defense setup (SAMs). Having high price tags and carrying lethal weapons would make them a priority. Their only practical application is to "bully" an unsophisticated enemy. For example, had Russia tried this kind of a weapon against Kiev or Lviv then the s300 and Buks would have taken them out in a matter of minutes.
Also, thinking that a remote pilot has different level of empathy vs a pilot that's inside the aircraft is a little deranged from the reality of military operations. A weapon is a weapon, it is meant to eliminate/kill targets.
Also, thinking that a remote pilot has different level of empathy vs a pilot that's inside the aircraft is a little deranged from the reality of military operations. A weapon is a weapon, it is meant to eliminate/kill targets.
If you’ve flown in a plane and flown a flight sim of the same plane you’ll understand the difference in visual acuity. A pilot in the seat has huge informational advantage over a remote pilot.
This informational advantage can and does influence decision making, go / no go scenarios.
This informational advantage can and does influence decision making, go / no go scenarios.
[deleted]
> For example, had Russia tried this kind of a weapon against Kiev or Lviv then the s300 and Buks would have taken them out in a matter of minutes.
However, when supplanted by electronic warfare and decent intel, we've seen how Azerbaijan's TB2s destroyed a lot of Armenian SAM sites, without blinking. Even they took out a S300 site by marking it with a TB2 and destroying it with missiles.
So, it's not as clear cut as it seems.
However, when supplanted by electronic warfare and decent intel, we've seen how Azerbaijan's TB2s destroyed a lot of Armenian SAM sites, without blinking. Even they took out a S300 site by marking it with a TB2 and destroying it with missiles.
So, it's not as clear cut as it seems.
Ok, yes, you can plan a modern mission where this kind of equipment, alongside some electronic warfare, other crafts and good intel, results in a success against a high level enemy. You are right. Although a good old f16 or f18 would be a lot more useful in such a role
I just meant to say that something like "we fly this drone, alone, here, make a quick kill and come back" only works against very under-armed military groups. Ukraine, as an example, is well above that level of defense.
Also, I am eagerly awaiting reliable information on how did it happen that TB2s were such a force against Russian tanks. I suspect extreme levels of Russian bardak while covering their own forces with air defense layers.
I just meant to say that something like "we fly this drone, alone, here, make a quick kill and come back" only works against very under-armed military groups. Ukraine, as an example, is well above that level of defense.
Also, I am eagerly awaiting reliable information on how did it happen that TB2s were such a force against Russian tanks. I suspect extreme levels of Russian bardak while covering their own forces with air defense layers.
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?
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).
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).
> 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 nation.
Ask the Americans. Ooooh. China is terrible. I mean, there's a bias, no? They're the ones at risk of losing their spot at the head of the table. Makes sense they wouldn't like them.
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 nation.
Ask the Americans. Ooooh. China is terrible. I mean, there's a bias, no? They're the ones at risk of losing their spot at the head of the table. Makes sense they wouldn't like them.
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 more or less harm than Americans is up in the air, but my point is really that both China and America both do some pretty disagreeable things. And yes, if you ask the Americans they will say they do less evil things, as if you ask a Chinese citizen they will most likely say America is more evil or in the best case (from my experience at least) they will say America is just as evil.
I think one of the primary anecdotal experiences I've had is that I've asked my Chinese relatives and they acknowledge China's horribly corrupt and evil, but they think America is equally as bad... whereas most Americans are ignorant of our own problems.
Unfortunately since there's really only two major world powers and spheres of influences right now, there isn't a whole lot of competition and wherever you go you'll step on some unsavory things.
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 more or less harm than Americans is up in the air, but my point is really that both China and America both do some pretty disagreeable things. And yes, if you ask the Americans they will say they do less evil things, as if you ask a Chinese citizen they will most likely say America is more evil or in the best case (from my experience at least) they will say America is just as evil.
I think one of the primary anecdotal experiences I've had is that I've asked my Chinese relatives and they acknowledge China's horribly corrupt and evil, but they think America is equally as bad... whereas most Americans are ignorant of our own problems.
Unfortunately since there's really only two major world powers and spheres of influences right now, there isn't a whole lot of competition and wherever you go you'll step on some unsavory things.
>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.
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.
In the grand scheme of things it doesn’t if something is slightly more rotten than the other thing or a lot more rotten. They’ll both end up spoiling.
I was educated in America from K to 12 and some college, across 3 different states and even 3 years in Canada (where they actually shat on America a lot). Most of what we are taught about freedom or democracy is bullshit. When it comes down to our foreign policy at least it’s really just us or them. The cognitive dissonance is in holding that belief that we are actually helping the countries we invade or topple via the CIA.
I was educated in America from K to 12 and some college, across 3 different states and even 3 years in Canada (where they actually shat on America a lot). Most of what we are taught about freedom or democracy is bullshit. When it comes down to our foreign policy at least it’s really just us or them. The cognitive dissonance is in holding that belief that we are actually helping the countries we invade or topple via the CIA.
> as most people will support their own government (it's only rational).
I think that this is an interesting discussion by itself. Is nationalism rational by itself ?
I don't have many interesting arguments to make about it, but if I would argue that it's not so evident that it is rational behavior, but rather an irrational behavior that stems from the way our society is structured.
I think that this is an interesting discussion by itself. Is nationalism rational by itself ?
I don't have many interesting arguments to make about it, but if I would argue that it's not so evident that it is rational behavior, but rather an irrational behavior that stems from the way our society is structured.
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.
And that exact whitewashing of China, Russia is what weakens your point.
The article we are commenting on literally describes indiscriminate killing of people by the US military. If all you have to do to justify killing a people or imprisoning them in Guantanamo is to label them as terrorists then China is way ahead of you. They are just preempting their own terrorists. So is Russia. They are just fighting Nazis in Ukraine.
It’s pointless to argue who is more corrupt/evil. It doesn’t matter if one side is even a lot more rotten than the other. Any rotting system will continue to rot until they resemble each other.
My whole point revolves around the ignorance of Americans to their own atrocities, because, believe it or not, that Chinese citizen has the same line of thinking on their own country’s atrocities.
You might argue that Chinese citizens are also subject to propaganda on the atrocities. But actually many are well aware of that. The difference in America is that we think we don’t have propaganda. Propaganda is really just a prevailing spin in information. Just because there is free speech doesn’t mean some prevailing biased take cannot exist.
It’s pointless to argue who is more corrupt/evil. It doesn’t matter if one side is even a lot more rotten than the other. Any rotting system will continue to rot until they resemble each other.
My whole point revolves around the ignorance of Americans to their own atrocities, because, believe it or not, that Chinese citizen has the same line of thinking on their own country’s atrocities.
You might argue that Chinese citizens are also subject to propaganda on the atrocities. But actually many are well aware of that. The difference in America is that we think we don’t have propaganda. Propaganda is really just a prevailing spin in information. Just because there is free speech doesn’t mean some prevailing biased take cannot exist.
The comment I am responding to is not so much about American guilt as about arguing that China is somehow better. Note how not a single sentence in my comment rationalized or minimized Guantanamo.
> So is Russia. They are just fighting Nazis in Ukraine.
I know this is tangential, but that is not actually all that Putin is saying tho. His rationale is way more far reaching and involves a lot about where he see Ukrainien future as such.
As in,even going by Russia propaganda, this statement is not true.
> So is Russia. They are just fighting Nazis in Ukraine.
I know this is tangential, but that is not actually all that Putin is saying tho. His rationale is way more far reaching and involves a lot about where he see Ukrainien future as such.
As in,even going by Russia propaganda, this statement is not true.
> 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 is a bleak outlook. It would mean that any kind of revolution, or internal change, is effectively impossible, and that the only way to limit the powers of nation-states and corporations is through adversarial confrontation with similarly sized competitors, which can come at huge cost (wars, sanctions, etc).
Internal changes are still possible, but we need to fight for it. While that may come at a huge cost, I believe that it would end up less costly than endless confrontation with similar powers.
That is a bleak outlook. It would mean that any kind of revolution, or internal change, is effectively impossible, and that the only way to limit the powers of nation-states and corporations is through adversarial confrontation with similarly sized competitors, which can come at huge cost (wars, sanctions, etc).
Internal changes are still possible, but we need to fight for it. While that may come at a huge cost, I believe that it would end up less costly than endless confrontation with similar powers.
What would 'cancel ourselves' look like? Intentionally electing incompetent people? Buying Bitcoin?
Seeing as the US are war criminals that refuse to be judged and committed unspeakable and uncountable atrocities over the past few decades...YES
We absolutely should, until they clear their house from top to bottom. Have trials run against anyone participating in these atrocities with jury being peers of the victims(that is those murdered). Treat anyone who has anyway participated or given money to the political parties or anyone who supported these actions as concentration camp guards from National Socialist Germany.
I suggest sending more American guns to Ukraine as a compromise.
>"And sometimes what the customer wanted did not seem right. 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"
All nice and dandy. And the world looks the other way.
All nice and dandy. And the world looks the other way.
If my kids play a lot of realistic drone strike games, does it increase the likelihood of their being recruited as child soldiers for the Great Drone War? Asking as a concerned parent.
More likely their online 'Killz n Skillz' are being sucked up to train AI.
Yes.
Can someone change the title to the actual headline please?
Since some loser flagged my previous comment:
https://twitter.com/nyt_diff/status/1515373039923388420
https://twitter.com/nyt_diff/status/1515373039923388420
[deleted]
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 is overly simplistic -- which is also why it bears repeating.
Anyone can be made to commit atrocities in an environment shaped the right way. If I grew up like these people, I'm sure I would pull the trigger in exactly the same situations.
But it still would take my cooperation. I can only pull the trigger if I'm somehow made to want it, at some level. Or at least if I'm made to think I have no choice.
By emphasising our individual ethical responsibilities -- the simple fact that it takes some amount of cooperation for a person to do anything at all, we are creating a small obstacle in the way of creating a dangerous environment that can turn me into an assassin.
Anyone can be made to commit atrocities in an environment shaped the right way. If I grew up like these people, I'm sure I would pull the trigger in exactly the same situations.
But it still would take my cooperation. I can only pull the trigger if I'm somehow made to want it, at some level. Or at least if I'm made to think I have no choice.
By emphasising our individual ethical responsibilities -- the simple fact that it takes some amount of cooperation for a person to do anything at all, we are creating a small obstacle in the way of creating a dangerous environment that can turn me into an assassin.
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.
That's impossible.
I can easily imagine that we achieve world peace within 50 years through two very simple economic reforms but I can't imagine that it will actually happen.
I can easily imagine that we achieve world peace within 50 years through two very simple economic reforms but I can't imagine that it will actually happen.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That is incredibly arrogant look at the world.
>Chinese-Indian-Russian alliance
I think hell would freeze over before those three teamed up.
I think hell would freeze over before those three teamed up.
Well yeah. Neither does a thief want to live in a world where they must return the goods and be held accountable. Traditionally we don't weigh their desires very heavily in those decisions.
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.
I don't want to speak for you, but it alsi makes me feel uncomfortable, but I know why.
The 'detached black and white' view of the world us how we got here in the first place.
Clinging to moral absolutes and trying to frame real life in that rigid framework is a lazy/irresponsible way to be efficient. If you don't have to worry about the details (truth), decisions seem easier.
The 'detached black and white' view of the world us how we got here in the first place.
Clinging to moral absolutes and trying to frame real life in that rigid framework is a lazy/irresponsible way to be efficient. If you don't have to worry about the details (truth), decisions seem easier.
Nobody forces you to pilot drones. It is very simple, either you do it or you don't. Given that there are other choices there are no justifications.
I'd rather clean toilets my whole life than build a career on the death of innocents.
I'd rather clean toilets my whole life than build a career on the death of innocents.
Remember that half the population has an IQ under 100 and half of those live in places where the American Soldier is still venerated as a paragon of virtue and sacrifice. They’re not victims like the Yemeni kids they’re killing, but they are being manipulated into the situations they choose for themselves.
McNamara’s Project 100,000 did not stop at 100,000.
And I also have no sympathy for those who vote for or fund the people who allow or make these actions continue. They have as much blood on their hand and deserve the worst. Pure evil like that should not be allowed to exist free in this world.
Fisticuffs then?
It's behind a paywall, but I was able to find it here.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/uw-grads-story-rev...
Looks like it was more the drug policy of the U.S. Air Force that lead this man to fall apart more than the droning of people far away.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/uw-grads-story-rev...
Looks like it was more the drug policy of the U.S. Air Force that lead this man to fall apart more than the droning of people far away.
Animats(4)
Why is the article focusing on the goon pulling the trigger, as opposed to these actual killed-dead casualties?