8 ms·
Airmen who surveil the Islamic State never get to look away
- rdl 9y agoThis seems like a perfect opportunity for automation. Describing a scene from a video feed and what is happening is within current tech, especially with periodic human oversight.
- vesak 9y agoSo now again we're devising methods of killing people that make it easier for the killers. That's the same problem that the overseers of death camps faced and solved.
- HenryBemis 9y agowell we do have a few "Judges Dredd" on this planet, no wonder that they will become more efficient/effective. the solution is never the violence as it will only bring more violence. I wonder why some humans persistently fail to understand that.. oh wait.. it's money.
- tomelders 9y agoViolence is sometimes the solution. It should always be an option, it must never be the first option.
- labster 9y agoViolence is like XML. If it's not working, use more of it.
- briandear 9y agoWould you rather we did nothing and all and allow things like this to continue to happen: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-sex-slaves-lamiya-aji-bashar-nadia-murad-sinjar-yazidi-genocide-sexual-violence-rape-sakharov-a7445151.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-sex... There are people quick to condemn drones, still other condemn troops on the ground, finally others who condemn providing weapons.. yet, not yet has one of those proposed an actual, concrete solution to ending the Islamic State. This isn't a group that responds to "talks" or "negotiation" or "diplomacy." They are fanatics. They are rabid dogs. While many ISIS fighters weren't born rabid, they quickly get infected. They make the Taliban seem positively liberal. And, life under the Taliban was pretty close to hell -- especially if you were a woman. Have a look at this story from a former ISIS fighter as to what that group does: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-isis-member-explains-why-he-left-terror-group/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-isis-member-explains-why-... It feels that these anti-drone, anti-fighting, pacifist, appeasement types would have us sign a Munich Agreement, condemning the people of the "Sudetenland" to Nazi rule while proclaiming that betrayal as "peace for our time." Using smarter, technology assisted targeting would make it easier to stop the pure evil of ISIS -- who, if given the opportunity, would suffocate Europe under a veil of oppression that would make even Hitler blush. I get it "drones," "Dick Cheney," "Bush, Bush, Bush, "NSA," "CIA," "US Imperialism" -- I know these are dog whistles to rile up progressives to make them instinctively oppose anything the US does in the region. It could be argued that defeating ISIS is one of the most progressive causes on the planet today. Defeating an enemy that throws suspected gays from rooftops, enslaves minority women, requires unrelenting devotion to a government-imposed religious system, wants all Jews dead, straps bombs to puppies, destroys historical sites, burns books -- I think I just described almost the entire cannon of anti-progressivism possible. And yet, there is a subset of progressives that actually suggest violence isn't the answer? I guess if ISIS were global warming skeptics, maybe then we should try harder to kill them? On the other hand, if the US were to invest billions in building up the economies of the region, perhaps providing billions to small businesses and entrepreneurs -- then the US would be accused of economic imperialism. If the US just stays out of the region completely, that's no different that the US staying neutral in World War II, while China was conquered by the Japanese, Europe and North Africa became a sea of Nazi red and millions of people, by virtue of dubious genetic "inferiority," are shipped off to the camps. Have we learned nothing from history? Evil, left unchecked, doesn't respond to calm reasoning, it responds to overwhelming force. If ISIS were in your front yard raping your sister and your mother, setting your toddler brother on fire with gasoline while eating your pet dog for dinner -- would you attempt to negotiate? Would non-violence really be the answer? What if groups of heavily armed Republicans rolled into the Castro in Toyota Hiluxes and started open firing on LGBT people? It's easy, and quite frankly arrogant for any of us to sit in front of our shiny computers, some of us on Aeron chairs making several thousand times more money than the average person in ISIS territory will ever see in their lifetime -- and talk about non-violence. It's that salon-pseudo-liberalism that let the Nazis waltz right into Paris and sent the Jews from the Gare de l'Est straight into the ovens. Even Bernie Sanders supports violence when the threat is of enough significance. In 1998, he voted for the US policy of regime change in Iraq. He called Saddam a "brutal and illegitimate dictator" who should be removed from office." Sanders again in 2012 voted to arm Syrian rebels against Al-Assad. Hillary Clinton's policy proposal against ISIS featured this: "Defeat ISIS in the Middle East by smashing its stronghold, hitting its fighters, leaders, and infrastructure from the air, and intensifying support for local forces who can pursue them on the ground." Even GHANDI supported using violence in the defense of the innocent. "I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor." This idea of absolute non-violence is naïve.
- briandear 9y agoFalse equivalency. Death camp victims were exterminated because of who they were, the Islamic State is being targeted because of what they do.
- vesak 9y agoFair point. It's still disconcerting because slippery slope and all that. I'm actually totally for killing ISIS members in any way possible. I just think we oughta own up to what we're doing. We're killing people because they are evil. They are evil because of how we have actively handled governments et al in that area.
- rdl 9y agoI'm talking about the ISR portion of the mission, not the shooting part. 99%+ of the mission is ISR.
- airza 9y agoit's not really that great in scenarios where the person in the scene can take arbitrary actions to deceive the viewing tech
- quickthrower 9y agoWhat of the three laws of robotics?
- dingo_bat 9y agoExactly. As I mentioned in another comment, I hope somebody is feeding all this into a giant supercomputer neural network. Drone operations need to be closed loop, with only rare human intervention required.
- vacri 9y agoEvery time I read one of these articles these days, it reminds me of Frankie Boyle's comment: > American foreign policy is horrendous 'cause not only will America come to your country and kill all your people, but what's worse, I think, is that they'll come back 20 years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- andruby 9y agoAwch, that's painful in many ways.
- samsonradu 9y agoReminds me of the Rambo series. What a piece of crap scenario.
- dingo_bat 9y agoWhat's wrong about it? Unless you consider being successful and powerful as a "bad" thing. I don't get it. Isn't this similar to how people in some countries spend extra money to over purify water while people in Africa and Asia drink muddy water? The value of a person depends on the per capita GDP of the country they live in. The net decrease in value caused by a US soldier becoming depressed is probably equal to the deaths of ~10 Iraqis. So in the absolute sense, the former is a bigger tragedy and needs a quicker solution.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- sctb 9y agoYou're not welcome to post uncivilly like this on Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- kristofferR 9y agoI'm reminded of the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=w08bAwq_zro https://youtube.com/watch?v=w08bAwq_zro
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- peterkelly 9y ago> The number of allowable civilian casualties can vary with the importance of the target. A fascinating insight into the mindset behind a terrorist organization. The complete devaluation of innocent human lives in order to achieve the group's objectives.
- aaron-lebo 9y agoUnless the primary goal is propaganda by violence it's not terrorism. It seems pedantic but "terrorism" has somewhat of a definition, devaluation of lives isn't the key component, it's the purpose of the action. It sucks and is morally wrong, but it isn't terrorism unless you want to argue that the main purpose of these strikes it to terrorize the civilian population. That may be the case but it seems they really just want to kill certain people and collateral damage is accepted.
- m_eiman 9y agoTerrorism isn't about propaganda, IMHO. I agree somewhat with Wikipedia: Terrorism is a term used in its broadest sense to describe the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim. But I'd say it's not just indiscriminate violence, targeting e.g. members of political or judiciary organizations is often used too.
- Dylan16807 9y ago> The complete devaluation You misspelled "valuation". Edit: Flagged? Putting a price on people's lives and deciding what threshold is acceptable is extremely different from deciding lives have zero value. It's just a pun. Note that "valuation" and "devaluation" are not opposites.
- apsec112 9y ago"terrorist organization" Please don't call names like this. "The complete devaluation of innocent human lives in order to achieve the group's objectives." Any war will inevitably, and predictably, lead to some number of civilian deaths. Should we disband all militaries? If so, how would we deal with groups like ISIS?
- dredmorbius 9y ago"It's just data." Information is pointers. Some points to lives. Some, deaths.
- d--b 9y agoUgh, this is the most depressing piece of journalsim I've read in a long time. The combination of actually-happening-dystopian-surveillance-based war and ptsd-ladden office-space-like-suburban life makes me sick to my stomach.
- zxcmx 9y agoIs it so different if you fire the guns yoursef? Is the experience more "authentic" if you are in the warzone? Are we in a world where we need artisanal, hand-fought wars? I know exactly what you mean though :( But the problem is war itself. Humans are humans, but we need to resist war on every level we contribute to it, no matter how remote. This might mean not contributing to organisations we otherwise support.
- adamjc 9y ago> Is it so different if you fire the guns yoursef? Yes, it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
- zxcmx 9y agoHow about I respond with: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/lesser-known-trolley-problem-variations https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/lesser-known-trolley-pro... The world is not utilitarianism. [edit] on reflection you might have been agreeing with me but I still think the trolley problem answer is trite.
- adrianN 9y agoIt seems to me that sometimes the best way to resist is to fight. How would you deal with groups like IS without killing people?
- Filligree 9y agoFor groups like it, the only fix would be to not create it to begin with. That is to say, it's the usual--improve the economy, secularize the world, prevent people from feeling desperate enough that forming such groups feels like a good idea. Some of it is about ideals, so spread Western ones; push the world closer to being a cultural monoculture. It's worth doing, but in the meantime, you have to fight them when they pop up. There'll be lash-back to any attempt at doing this, too.
- staofbur 9y agoThis makes me think of Enders Game.
- golergka 9y agoI never get surprised to the ridiculous moral mechanics that drive western commenters here and elsewhere to declare this "evil" or "terrorist". I get it, you get squeamish at thought of killing — but when the rocket strike, although killing innocent civilians, is net positive on innocent lives, why the hell are you only talking about casualties and not about countless lives saved?
- lb1lf 9y ago-Quick, snarky question: Would you feel as relaxed about the occasional loss of innocent life if the operations were carried out in your own neighbourhood?
- golergka 9y agoPersonal ethics and society ethics don't always match up and don't have to. Society ethics should be utilitarian, optimizing general welfare from a third person, objective point of view. Personal ethics is inherently subjective and tied to your personal point of view. Personally, I (and most people) support systems of societal ethics (such as governments) because they work for me most of the time. Not necessarily always.
- mmjaa 9y agoMorals are personal. Ethics, social. There is no such thing as 'society ethics'. In this case, the ethics of one group allows it to destroy the civilisation of the other group, whose ethics are not aligned well enough to the original, more powerful group.
- dingo_bat 9y agoGood, this is exactly how developed nations should fight wars. No need to send in personnel. Also, I hope somebody is taking all that video and text analysis and feeding it into a mammoth neural network. We need to automate drone operations ASAP.
- dmix 9y agoI wonder what kind of latency they get with this feed from a drone in the skies of Iraq to a base in Qatar to her office in the East coast of the USA. Considering they need to respond pretty fast to what's happening and coordinate with pilots or people on the ground.
- d--b 9y agohttps://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21352/how-do-drones-overcome-latency https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21352/how-do-dr...