4 ms·

Granted I haven't read the linked documents, but how does the cited 90% link or compare to other tactics? If the target of your operation is to kill an enemy co

by roel_v 11y ago

Granted I haven't read the linked documents, but how does the cited 90% link or compare to other tactics? If the target of your operation is to kill an enemy commander, and you kill 9 of his bodyguards as well, then 90% of the people killed weren't your targets, but I'd say that they weren't even 'collateral damage' - more an 'extra bonus' (sorry if that sounds callous). I mean I can think of several different ways to spin this number just being an uninformed citizen who knows nothing about the topic at all, so I'm hesitant to take the implied claim that drones kill many more innocent civilians than alternative methods do at face value. It could very well be true, intuitively I'd even say that yes drone strikes will have lower precision, I'm just saying that if this is the smoking gun - then it's not very convincing.

rdtsc 11y ago
> but I'd say that they weren't even 'collateral damage' - more an 'extra bonus' I think that exemplies exactly what is wrong here. The attitude that once we push a button and kill one Yemeni person, we won't feel a lot guilter if we kill 9. We are already killing, might as well "err on the side of caution" and kill more, just in case those are dangerous body guards there.
- roel_v 11y ago
  Well no, I don't think that's true. I don't think you'll find many people in the military who think 'oh I'm already killing this guy with the AK74 who's shooting at my buddies, I might as well shoot the pregnant woman with the 3-year old on her arm as well, just to be safe'. I don't know about operations procedures, but I would imagine it's standard procedure to take out any armed people in the vicinity of your target. With drones you can't really just stun them or whatever, so yeah you have to kill them. But those aren't 'innocent bystanders'. They're enemy combatants in all meanings of the concept, and 'fair game' (sorry again if that sounds callous again). Furthermore, I think it's easy but simplistic to say 'all these soldiers are remorseless killing machines', neither for on-the-ground troops, drone operators or generals who take the high level decisions. I think all of them have thought and think much more and harder about what it means to kill a person, and the fact that most of them in some form or another assist in killing people 'by accident', than you or I do. I also think that for the vast majority of them, this is a major psychological burden, something that literally haunts them at night. Yet they do what they do despite that, and I don't think that the majority of them do it because they're sadistic subhumans who get off on the idea of making children in an already bad situation on the other side of the world orphans. So, if we can get past the 'killing people with drones is immoral no matter what' rhetoric, we can come back to the real question: what is the effect of drone usage on warfare, and more to the point of the OP, is the implied claim that 90% of drone killings are of innocent civilians accurate? And how does that compare to more conventional tactics, e.g. airstrikes by regular bombers, mortar attacks, or 'plain' action-movie style Special Forces droppings who engage in closed quarters shootouts?
  - rdtsc 11y ago
    > don't think you'll find many people in the military who think 'oh I'm already killing this guy with the AK74 who's shooting at my buddies, That is exactly what's happening when they act on incomplete intel, don't care to double check, (we just attacked a Doctors Without Borders hospital last month). Yet we still pull the trigger. So I think we'll find quite a few in the armed forced would and did approve those kind of actions. > But those aren't 'innocent bystanders'. You seem to be very sure of that. I am not. > They're enemy combatants in all meanings of the concept, and 'fair game' (sorry again if that sounds callous again). Now with a bit of pr gymnastics we can of course say "anyone near this person who may or may not be our target is an enemy combatant", and then we solve the problem and sleep better at night. And I think that is pretty much what's been happening. That is why I pointed out to your comment as an example of the problem. > I think all of them have thought and think much more and harder about what it means to kill a person Why would they? Their lives are not in danger. It is fun to do mission and pad stats. Are the people who blew up the Doctors Without Borders going to jail at least for manslaughter? Nope. So why stop? > this is a major psychological burden, something that literally haunts them at night. Unless there is a draft going on that I am not aware of, they got into it on their own will. Not sure what they expected? Travel, see the world? This is especially true for those signing up after the Iraq War. Still looking for WMDs I guess... > do it because they're sadistic subhumans who get off on the idea of making children in an already bad situation on the other side of the world orphans. Yet they keep making children o the other side of the world orphans. Do you know in Yemen what mothers tell their children will happen if they don't go to sleep on time or don't pick up their toys? They tell them "the drone will get you". > So, if we can get past the 'killing people with drones is immoral no matter what' rhetoric, That's not the argument here. But we can at least talk about why are even killing anyone in Yemen to start with, with drones or otherwise.
- deciplex 11y ago
  It's not reasonable to insist on zero collateral damage of e.g. bodyguards, family, associates, etc., but still support drone strikes. If you resolve to assassinate a single person it's pretty much a given that you will very likely have to also take out bodyguards and possibly family members and other associates as well. If we don't like that then we shouldn't be assassinating people in the first place, especially by drone strike which is almost certain to have a higher rate of collateral damage. It is reasonable, however, to support drone strikes accepting the collateral damage but also insisting on a very high level of certainty, perhaps to the point of direct line of sight by someone trusted and nearby, that the target is where we think he is.

by roel_v 11y ago

rdtsc 11y ago

> but I'd say that they weren't even 'collateral damage' - more an 'extra bonus' I think that exemplies exactly what is wrong here. The attitude that once we push a button and kill one Yemeni person, we won't feel a lot guilter if we kill 9. We are already killing, might as well "err on the side of caution" and kill more, just in case those are dangerous body guards there.

roel_v 11y ago
Well no, I don't think that's true. I don't think you'll find many people in the military who think 'oh I'm already killing this guy with the AK74 who's shooting at my buddies, I might as well shoot the pregnant woman with the 3-year old on her arm as well, just to be safe'. I don't know about operations procedures, but I would imagine it's standard procedure to take out any armed people in the vicinity of your target. With drones you can't really just stun them or whatever, so yeah you have to kill them. But those aren't 'innocent bystanders'. They're enemy combatants in all meanings of the concept, and 'fair game' (sorry again if that sounds callous again). Furthermore, I think it's easy but simplistic to say 'all these soldiers are remorseless killing machines', neither for on-the-ground troops, drone operators or generals who take the high level decisions. I think all of them have thought and think much more and harder about what it means to kill a person, and the fact that most of them in some form or another assist in killing people 'by accident', than you or I do. I also think that for the vast majority of them, this is a major psychological burden, something that literally haunts them at night. Yet they do what they do despite that, and I don't think that the majority of them do it because they're sadistic subhumans who get off on the idea of making children in an already bad situation on the other side of the world orphans. So, if we can get past the 'killing people with drones is immoral no matter what' rhetoric, we can come back to the real question: what is the effect of drone usage on warfare, and more to the point of the OP, is the implied claim that 90% of drone killings are of innocent civilians accurate? And how does that compare to more conventional tactics, e.g. airstrikes by regular bombers, mortar attacks, or 'plain' action-movie style Special Forces droppings who engage in closed quarters shootouts?
- rdtsc 11y ago
  > don't think you'll find many people in the military who think 'oh I'm already killing this guy with the AK74 who's shooting at my buddies, That is exactly what's happening when they act on incomplete intel, don't care to double check, (we just attacked a Doctors Without Borders hospital last month). Yet we still pull the trigger. So I think we'll find quite a few in the armed forced would and did approve those kind of actions. > But those aren't 'innocent bystanders'. You seem to be very sure of that. I am not. > They're enemy combatants in all meanings of the concept, and 'fair game' (sorry again if that sounds callous again). Now with a bit of pr gymnastics we can of course say "anyone near this person who may or may not be our target is an enemy combatant", and then we solve the problem and sleep better at night. And I think that is pretty much what's been happening. That is why I pointed out to your comment as an example of the problem. > I think all of them have thought and think much more and harder about what it means to kill a person Why would they? Their lives are not in danger. It is fun to do mission and pad stats. Are the people who blew up the Doctors Without Borders going to jail at least for manslaughter? Nope. So why stop? > this is a major psychological burden, something that literally haunts them at night. Unless there is a draft going on that I am not aware of, they got into it on their own will. Not sure what they expected? Travel, see the world? This is especially true for those signing up after the Iraq War. Still looking for WMDs I guess... > do it because they're sadistic subhumans who get off on the idea of making children in an already bad situation on the other side of the world orphans. Yet they keep making children o the other side of the world orphans. Do you know in Yemen what mothers tell their children will happen if they don't go to sleep on time or don't pick up their toys? They tell them "the drone will get you". > So, if we can get past the 'killing people with drones is immoral no matter what' rhetoric, That's not the argument here. But we can at least talk about why are even killing anyone in Yemen to start with, with drones or otherwise.
deciplex 11y ago
It's not reasonable to insist on zero collateral damage of e.g. bodyguards, family, associates, etc., but still support drone strikes. If you resolve to assassinate a single person it's pretty much a given that you will very likely have to also take out bodyguards and possibly family members and other associates as well. If we don't like that then we shouldn't be assassinating people in the first place, especially by drone strike which is almost certain to have a higher rate of collateral damage. It is reasonable, however, to support drone strikes accepting the collateral damage but also insisting on a very high level of certainty, perhaps to the point of direct line of sight by someone trusted and nearby, that the target is where we think he is.