6 ms·

The effort to make war less inhumane dates back centuries

18 points by danboarder 11y ago

danboarder 11y ago
According to Betteridge's law* a title in the form a question can be answered with a "No". That said, this article does explore developments in precision tech resulting in "less killing" or "more targeted killing". When will the global community work on growing past the age of war? Perhaps toward an age of military competition without death. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
danharaj 11y ago
Really gizmodo? Your adherence to the Betteridge rule made me gag a little. The question in the headline is abhorrent, even if the body of the article is somewhat sensible. It's honestly the worst line of investigation I could think of. Instead of this question, I think the best premise is to ask how we got the point where the image of constantly belligerent western militaries is distorted into a picture of humanity and outright magnanimous consideration for human life?
- the8472 11y ago
  > It's honestly the worst line of investigation I could think of. Really? You don't think investigating whether technological progress has (or hasn't) improved the damages caused by war is worthwhile? The issue that we somehow can't manage to stop going to war is a distinct one. Just because it would be preferable to not start wars in the first place asking followup questions about the effectiveness of attempts to reduce collateral damage and indiscriminate slaughter when we do seems reasonable to me.
mtgx 11y ago
The US gov (at least under the current president and under at least 90% of the current candidates) does not care about non-lethal weapons. It prefers killing them, even over blinding them instead (as the article says), or capturing them [1]. As for automated killing robots, is anyone naive enough to think they will wait until they can "perfectly identify an enemy combatant"? First off, the definition of enemy combatant is already waaay too vague, to include just about any male in the Middle East. Second, the gov is making even now, in 2015, plenty of "mistakes" with drone strikes (see the hospital strike, the killing of the mother of the guy who they were supposed to kill, but had switched phones) - and they've been using them for more than a decade. After all of these facts, there's nothing that can convince me that the robots will only kill the "right people" when they start launching them on the battlefield. [1] https://theintercept.com/document/2015/10/14/small-footprint-operations-5-13 https://theintercept.com/document/2015/10/14/small-footprint...
mladenkovacevic 11y ago
I wonder who commissioned this article.
patcon 11y ago
I'll just drop this here: The Strange Tale of the Norden Bombsight https://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell https://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell
- Animats 11y ago
  For a sense of the problem, watch this Norden bombsight training film.[1] This shows a training mission; the geometry of dropping a bomb with the sight is covered in [2]. Three's lots of looking at crosshairs while making fine adjustments to knobs. It's not enough to get the crosshairs on target; approach and drift speeds have to be set so that the crosshairs stay on target as the plane moves. This is a four-knob job; basically X, Y, dX, and dY. All this has to be done in an airplane, often while people are shooting at you from the ground or attacking the bomber with fighters. The aircraft had to be flown straight and level for a minute or so approaching the target while the bombardier adjusted all the knobs. That seldom happened in combat against any defended target. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlW-JCqGkYo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlW-JCqGkYo [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh3hknntD10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh3hknntD10
  - mzs 11y ago
    Also Norden did not want to work with Sperry which had some better gyroscopes and less production issues.
gitpusher 11y ago
No. War is categorically inhumane. There are no gray areas. You can add layers of abstraction on top of the violence – much like Tesla owners are abstracted away from the pollution that powers their vehicles – but at the end of the day, someone is on the receiving end of a weapon designed to kill, and you can't sugar-coat that.
- walshemj 11y ago
  As opposed to area bombing ww2 style - modern war takes far more care to avoid collateral damage.
  - justinator 11y ago
    Interesting idea, but: * drones and missile guidance systems are not infallible * Soldiers join the army against their will * Terrorism is a thing. A big thing. Used by most countries.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      "modern war takes far more care to avoid collateral damage" != "modern war causes no collateral damage" != "modern war is humane". You therefore are not actually rebutting the GP's point.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      There's a big difference between dropping a smart bomb on a specific target and flattening an entire city in the hopes of getting that target. Guided weapons certainly aren't perfect, but they're miles better than the alternative.
  - ihsw 11y ago
    You're kidding, right? The operation in the Iraq War (2003) was a shit show -- we steamrolled Iraq's entire public infrastructure, funneled untold millions/billions into Islamist and Western militias, and killed/wounded tens of thousands of Americans, Iraqis, or otherwise. In Yemen and Afghanistan we send drones over with abandon, not taking care to avoid civilians or that we're hitting the right target. And after all that, hundreds of billions of dollars are thrown away. Not only is collateral damage there but it's here too -- we are wasting money on dubious programs that have no measurable indicator of success and no end in sight. War is every bit as ugly as it was a century ago.
KaiserPro 11y ago
Sorry, but what world are you living in? Yes, now that its not fashionable to report how many of the "enemy" are killed or injured at the end of each day, it doesn't mean that they are not killed. The sheer colossal waste of life for the last three big wars, is overwhelming. In iraq we(the west) killed the best part of at least 100,000 people. Then with the sheer ineptitude of occupation set the seeds for a bloody civil war that is still raging (ISIS et al is just a direct consequence) claiming god knows how many people through active fighting a week, and a magnitude more because of the breakdown of the fabric of society. Yes, we have precision bombs. Yes we have drones. but that just means that we, the west don't directly get hurt. Not the "enemy", or the poor fuckers that happen to be in the way. Do you know why the current calibre for most nato guns is 5.56mm? yes partly because its smaller, partly because there is less kick, but also because its less lethal. An injured enemy requires more resources to rescue, causes a distraction, and mental anguish. As described by many, more gifted people, war is hell. And right now, futile.
- walshemj 11y ago
  No they switched to 5.56 because 7.62 was over powered for the average range of a firefight for the citizen army's of ww2. Interestingly professional forces are going back towards full power Battle Rifles for at least some fire team members
  - rcurry 11y ago
    Yeah, I think a big part of this is that the current conflicts have been in open/desert areas where the range of engagement is simply further than the .223 was originally designed for. A .308 or similar caliber makes a lot more sense when you start looking at those kinds of distances.
- 67726e 11y ago
  > but also because its less lethal Source? The reason I've always gotten is that it causes the bullet to "tumble"[0] once it enters the body which causes even greater damage to the body than simply passing through, which results in a greater lethality. [0] - http://www.futurefirepower.com/myths-about-the-nato-556-cartridge http://www.futurefirepower.com/myths-about-the-nato-556-cart...
dang 11y ago
Discussion here is getting derailed by the provocative title, so we've replaced that with more neutral language from the article. If someone suggests a better (more accurate and neutral) one, we can change it again. Obviously there's no question of war being humane, but it isn't interesting to just repeat the universal reflexive objection, which the article itself includes: "The idea that we might be able to make war more humane at all seems oxymoronic; war is, by definition, inhumane." What we want is discussion that engages with the specific content of this article, not generic dismissals. If it's wrong, great, but say how and where. Long experience with HN has shown that generic dismissals lead to boilerplate threads (edit: which usually then turn angry—perhaps because they're so boring), but specific engagement gets interesting.
- will_brown 11y ago
  I propose "Jus in Bello". There are 2 terms in the Laws of War, one for the laws that govern the legal right to engage in war/use of force itself ("Jus Ad Bellum") and the laws that govern the conduct while engaged in war/use of force ("Jus In Bello"). As an introduction to the subject of jus in bello this particular article is a fire starter, for example, the thread would be much different if the article introduced Jody Williams[1] being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her work in banning landmines. Wars will still be brutal and gory but it is also good to know that 50 years after present wars are over kids won't be playing in a field somewhere having their legs blown off by unexploded landmines; whereas, 10 years ago there were 15,000-20,000 deaths/year (mostly children) and in 2012 there were 3,000-4,000 (mostly children).
tzs 11y ago
From Star Trek, season 1, episode 23, "A Taste of Armageddon": ANAN: It's a vicious attack, extremely destructive. Fortunately, our defences are firming, but our casualties are high. Very high. KIRK: Sir, I have been in contact with my ship, which has had this entire planet under surveillance. All during this so-called attack of yours, we have been monitoring you. There's been no attack, no explosions, no radiations, no disturbances whatsoever. If this is some sort of game you're playing... ANAN: This is no game, Captain. Half a million people have just been killed. Activate the attack units, Sar. SAR: Yes, Councilman. ANAN: Launch immediate counter attack. SPOCK: Computers, Captain. They fight their war with computers. Totally. ANAN: Yes, of course. KIRK: Computer don't kill a half million people. ANAN: Deaths have been registered. Of course they have twenty four hours to report. KIRK: To report? ANAN: To our disintegration machines. You must understand, Captain, we have been at war for five hundred years. Under ordinary conditions, no civilisation could withstand that. But we have reached a solution. SPOCK: Then the attack by Vendikar was theoretical. ANAN: Oh, no, quite real. An attack is mathematically launched. I lost my wife in the last attack. Our civilisation lives. The people die, but our culture goes on. KIRK: You mean to tell me your people just walk into a disintegration machine when they're told to? ANAN: We have a high consciousness of duty, Captain. SPOCK: There is a certain scientific logic about it. ANAN: I'm glad you approve. SPOCK: I do not approve. I understand. ANAN: Good. Then you will recall I warned you not to come here. You chose to ignore my warning. I'm sorry, but it's happened. KIRK: What has happened? ANAN: Once your ship was in orbit about our planet, it became a legitimate target. It has been classified destroyed by a tricobalt satellite explosion. All persons aboard your ship have twenty four hours to report to our disintegration machines. In order to ensure their co-operation, I have ordered you, Captain, and your party held in custody until they surrender. If possible, we shall spare your ship, Captain, but its passengers and crew are already dead.
7952 11y ago
Of course there is some twisted logic in actually killing people in war as it removes the possibility of an enemy fighting again. If everyone just surrenders at the first sign of a drone, or else is intent on suicide it just becomes a form of policing rather than war.
mzs 11y ago
The blinding laser made an interesting point. My wife had surgery last year where she told the surgeons to spare the use of her face rather than her vision should they run into a situation requiring a choice. She also knew going in that she would lose balance and hearing on one side. Different people (and cultures) value different things. She would much rather be deaf and blind than disfigured in any way. The point about potentially increasing casualties though is valid. Another point is regarding the targeting. When a missile strikes, assuming it strikes the intended target and meets the objective, there tend to be other losses as well. It's very disconcerting that it's people (even the objective) doing day to day things during that time. What is worse is that US considers 16-49 year old males as enemy combatants in that case and does not report that as civilian casualties. It's true it would be very hard and when it's at a training camp or the like it's more likely, but it's not always the case. Finally some of my family lived through WWII and some are still alive. The stories they told before passing and those still here tell are chilling. War is insane and inhumane. Unless you have this sort of account it's nearly impossible to comprehend how callous and capricious the events can be. Take the recent hospital strike. Of course the US military will do all they can to fight hard in the rules of engagement. They will call in airstrikes when ever they can and then you have civilian casualties. To war you have to live with that.
kaonashi 11y ago
Curious how much of this is actually about making things 'humane' and how much is for recruiting purposes. If you're running a war against a worthy opponent, everyone needs to get behind it if you have a chance at succeeding. It's also a pretty despicable thing to have to get behind, and not everyone is going to want to on purely moral grounds. If you can somehow soften the edges, at least in theory, you might be able to convince otherwise inconvincible segments of your own society to at least tacitly support the effort.

18 points by danboarder 11y ago

According to Betteridge's law* a title in the form a question can be answered with a "No". That said, this article does explore developments in precision tech resulting in "less killing" or "more targeted killing". When will the global community work on growing past the age of war? Perhaps toward an age of military competition without death. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

danharaj 11y ago

Really gizmodo? Your adherence to the Betteridge rule made me gag a little. The question in the headline is abhorrent, even if the body of the article is somewhat sensible. It's honestly the worst line of investigation I could think of. Instead of this question, I think the best premise is to ask how we got the point where the image of constantly belligerent western militaries is distorted into a picture of humanity and outright magnanimous consideration for human life?

the8472 11y ago
> It's honestly the worst line of investigation I could think of. Really? You don't think investigating whether technological progress has (or hasn't) improved the damages caused by war is worthwhile? The issue that we somehow can't manage to stop going to war is a distinct one. Just because it would be preferable to not start wars in the first place asking followup questions about the effectiveness of attempts to reduce collateral damage and indiscriminate slaughter when we do seems reasonable to me.

mtgx 11y ago

The US gov (at least under the current president and under at least 90% of the current candidates) does not care about non-lethal weapons. It prefers killing them, even over blinding them instead (as the article says), or capturing them [1]. As for automated killing robots, is anyone naive enough to think they will wait until they can "perfectly identify an enemy combatant"? First off, the definition of enemy combatant is already waaay too vague, to include just about any male in the Middle East. Second, the gov is making even now, in 2015, plenty of "mistakes" with drone strikes (see the hospital strike, the killing of the mother of the guy who they were supposed to kill, but had switched phones) - and they've been using them for more than a decade. After all of these facts, there's nothing that can convince me that the robots will only kill the "right people" when they start launching them on the battlefield. [1] https://theintercept.com/document/2015/10/14/small-footprint-operations-5-13 https://theintercept.com/document/2015/10/14/small-footprint...

mladenkovacevic 11y ago

I wonder who commissioned this article.

patcon 11y ago

I'll just drop this here: The Strange Tale of the Norden Bombsight https://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell https://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell

Animats 11y ago
For a sense of the problem, watch this Norden bombsight training film.[1] This shows a training mission; the geometry of dropping a bomb with the sight is covered in [2]. Three's lots of looking at crosshairs while making fine adjustments to knobs. It's not enough to get the crosshairs on target; approach and drift speeds have to be set so that the crosshairs stay on target as the plane moves. This is a four-knob job; basically X, Y, dX, and dY. All this has to be done in an airplane, often while people are shooting at you from the ground or attacking the bomber with fighters. The aircraft had to be flown straight and level for a minute or so approaching the target while the bombardier adjusted all the knobs. That seldom happened in combat against any defended target. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlW-JCqGkYo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlW-JCqGkYo [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh3hknntD10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh3hknntD10
- mzs 11y ago
  Also Norden did not want to work with Sperry which had some better gyroscopes and less production issues.

gitpusher 11y ago

No. War is categorically inhumane. There are no gray areas. You can add layers of abstraction on top of the violence – much like Tesla owners are abstracted away from the pollution that powers their vehicles – but at the end of the day, someone is on the receiving end of a weapon designed to kill, and you can't sugar-coat that.

walshemj 11y ago
As opposed to area bombing ww2 style - modern war takes far more care to avoid collateral damage.
- justinator 11y ago
  Interesting idea, but: * drones and missile guidance systems are not infallible * Soldiers join the army against their will * Terrorism is a thing. A big thing. Used by most countries.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    "modern war takes far more care to avoid collateral damage" != "modern war causes no collateral damage" != "modern war is humane". You therefore are not actually rebutting the GP's point.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    There's a big difference between dropping a smart bomb on a specific target and flattening an entire city in the hopes of getting that target. Guided weapons certainly aren't perfect, but they're miles better than the alternative.
- ihsw 11y ago
  You're kidding, right? The operation in the Iraq War (2003) was a shit show -- we steamrolled Iraq's entire public infrastructure, funneled untold millions/billions into Islamist and Western militias, and killed/wounded tens of thousands of Americans, Iraqis, or otherwise. In Yemen and Afghanistan we send drones over with abandon, not taking care to avoid civilians or that we're hitting the right target. And after all that, hundreds of billions of dollars are thrown away. Not only is collateral damage there but it's here too -- we are wasting money on dubious programs that have no measurable indicator of success and no end in sight. War is every bit as ugly as it was a century ago.

KaiserPro 11y ago

Sorry, but what world are you living in? Yes, now that its not fashionable to report how many of the "enemy" are killed or injured at the end of each day, it doesn't mean that they are not killed. The sheer colossal waste of life for the last three big wars, is overwhelming. In iraq we(the west) killed the best part of at least 100,000 people. Then with the sheer ineptitude of occupation set the seeds for a bloody civil war that is still raging (ISIS et al is just a direct consequence) claiming god knows how many people through active fighting a week, and a magnitude more because of the breakdown of the fabric of society. Yes, we have precision bombs. Yes we have drones. but that just means that we, the west don't directly get hurt. Not the "enemy", or the poor fuckers that happen to be in the way. Do you know why the current calibre for most nato guns is 5.56mm? yes partly because its smaller, partly because there is less kick, but also because its less lethal. An injured enemy requires more resources to rescue, causes a distraction, and mental anguish. As described by many, more gifted people, war is hell. And right now, futile.

walshemj 11y ago
No they switched to 5.56 because 7.62 was over powered for the average range of a firefight for the citizen army's of ww2. Interestingly professional forces are going back towards full power Battle Rifles for at least some fire team members
- rcurry 11y ago
  Yeah, I think a big part of this is that the current conflicts have been in open/desert areas where the range of engagement is simply further than the .223 was originally designed for. A .308 or similar caliber makes a lot more sense when you start looking at those kinds of distances.
67726e 11y ago
> but also because its less lethal Source? The reason I've always gotten is that it causes the bullet to "tumble"[0] once it enters the body which causes even greater damage to the body than simply passing through, which results in a greater lethality. [0] - http://www.futurefirepower.com/myths-about-the-nato-556-cartridge http://www.futurefirepower.com/myths-about-the-nato-556-cart...

dang 11y ago

Discussion here is getting derailed by the provocative title, so we've replaced that with more neutral language from the article. If someone suggests a better (more accurate and neutral) one, we can change it again. Obviously there's no question of war being humane, but it isn't interesting to just repeat the universal reflexive objection, which the article itself includes: "The idea that we might be able to make war more humane at all seems oxymoronic; war is, by definition, inhumane." What we want is discussion that engages with the specific content of this article, not generic dismissals. If it's wrong, great, but say how and where. Long experience with HN has shown that generic dismissals lead to boilerplate threads (edit: which usually then turn angry—perhaps because they're so boring), but specific engagement gets interesting.

will_brown 11y ago
I propose "Jus in Bello". There are 2 terms in the Laws of War, one for the laws that govern the legal right to engage in war/use of force itself ("Jus Ad Bellum") and the laws that govern the conduct while engaged in war/use of force ("Jus In Bello"). As an introduction to the subject of jus in bello this particular article is a fire starter, for example, the thread would be much different if the article introduced Jody Williams[1] being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her work in banning landmines. Wars will still be brutal and gory but it is also good to know that 50 years after present wars are over kids won't be playing in a field somewhere having their legs blown off by unexploded landmines; whereas, 10 years ago there were 15,000-20,000 deaths/year (mostly children) and in 2012 there were 3,000-4,000 (mostly children).

tzs 11y ago

From Star Trek, season 1, episode 23, "A Taste of Armageddon": ANAN: It's a vicious attack, extremely destructive. Fortunately, our defences are firming, but our casualties are high. Very high. KIRK: Sir, I have been in contact with my ship, which has had this entire planet under surveillance. All during this so-called attack of yours, we have been monitoring you. There's been no attack, no explosions, no radiations, no disturbances whatsoever. If this is some sort of game you're playing... ANAN: This is no game, Captain. Half a million people have just been killed. Activate the attack units, Sar. SAR: Yes, Councilman. ANAN: Launch immediate counter attack. SPOCK: Computers, Captain. They fight their war with computers. Totally. ANAN: Yes, of course. KIRK: Computer don't kill a half million people. ANAN: Deaths have been registered. Of course they have twenty four hours to report. KIRK: To report? ANAN: To our disintegration machines. You must understand, Captain, we have been at war for five hundred years. Under ordinary conditions, no civilisation could withstand that. But we have reached a solution. SPOCK: Then the attack by Vendikar was theoretical. ANAN: Oh, no, quite real. An attack is mathematically launched. I lost my wife in the last attack. Our civilisation lives. The people die, but our culture goes on. KIRK: You mean to tell me your people just walk into a disintegration machine when they're told to? ANAN: We have a high consciousness of duty, Captain. SPOCK: There is a certain scientific logic about it. ANAN: I'm glad you approve. SPOCK: I do not approve. I understand. ANAN: Good. Then you will recall I warned you not to come here. You chose to ignore my warning. I'm sorry, but it's happened. KIRK: What has happened? ANAN: Once your ship was in orbit about our planet, it became a legitimate target. It has been classified destroyed by a tricobalt satellite explosion. All persons aboard your ship have twenty four hours to report to our disintegration machines. In order to ensure their co-operation, I have ordered you, Captain, and your party held in custody until they surrender. If possible, we shall spare your ship, Captain, but its passengers and crew are already dead.

7952 11y ago

Of course there is some twisted logic in actually killing people in war as it removes the possibility of an enemy fighting again. If everyone just surrenders at the first sign of a drone, or else is intent on suicide it just becomes a form of policing rather than war.

mzs 11y ago

The blinding laser made an interesting point. My wife had surgery last year where she told the surgeons to spare the use of her face rather than her vision should they run into a situation requiring a choice. She also knew going in that she would lose balance and hearing on one side. Different people (and cultures) value different things. She would much rather be deaf and blind than disfigured in any way. The point about potentially increasing casualties though is valid. Another point is regarding the targeting. When a missile strikes, assuming it strikes the intended target and meets the objective, there tend to be other losses as well. It's very disconcerting that it's people (even the objective) doing day to day things during that time. What is worse is that US considers 16-49 year old males as enemy combatants in that case and does not report that as civilian casualties. It's true it would be very hard and when it's at a training camp or the like it's more likely, but it's not always the case. Finally some of my family lived through WWII and some are still alive. The stories they told before passing and those still here tell are chilling. War is insane and inhumane. Unless you have this sort of account it's nearly impossible to comprehend how callous and capricious the events can be. Take the recent hospital strike. Of course the US military will do all they can to fight hard in the rules of engagement. They will call in airstrikes when ever they can and then you have civilian casualties. To war you have to live with that.

kaonashi 11y ago

Curious how much of this is actually about making things 'humane' and how much is for recruiting purposes. If you're running a war against a worthy opponent, everyone needs to get behind it if you have a chance at succeeding. It's also a pretty despicable thing to have to get behind, and not everyone is going to want to on purely moral grounds. If you can somehow soften the edges, at least in theory, you might be able to convince otherwise inconvincible segments of your own society to at least tacitly support the effort.