3 ms·

The thing is that you can't simply lump all military-related activities into one heap. There's a scale from passively only reacting in self-defense when acted u

The thing is that you can't simply lump all military-related activities into one heap. There's a scale from passively only reacting in self-defense when acted upon, to actively seeking engagement on foreign ground. This thing Google helps with, parsing and scanning through drone visual feeds, typically ends up on the latter end of the scale. Sure, it could be used for parsing feeds from drones monitoring the US borders to Canada/Mexico, or cattle or whatever, but that's not the case here.

mc32 8y ago
One could argue if a military will keep on using drones, is it “better” for them and us to better discern an enemy more accurately to minimize non enemy casualties, or continue with present incidental collateral death rates? It’s not as simple as I’m against droning—that’s going to continue so long as the electorate demands minimized losses on our side (a very good argument, one leftists leveraged to try to get the US to disengage from previous wars), droning and it’s capabilities will continue.
- eesmith 8y ago
  "One could argue" many things. We have more than the two choices you present. We could add more people to the task instead of using machines. We can redefine what "enemy" means such that anyone who dies in a target area is an "enemy" - poof! no incidental collateral deaths. We can allow, say, the objections of the crew of the AC-130 to override possibly illegal orders which result in targeting hospitals. There are a great many things we can do; enough to suggest that what you propose as the goal to consider likely isn't an important US goal.
  - mc32 8y ago
    Sure, the point is frustrating the govt’s attempt at better data means that they might have to revert to one of the options you posed which would be contrary to the goals sought by those objecting to google’s getting involved —undercutting their own argument.

mc32 8y ago

One could argue if a military will keep on using drones, is it “better” for them and us to better discern an enemy more accurately to minimize non enemy casualties, or continue with present incidental collateral death rates? It’s not as simple as I’m against droning—that’s going to continue so long as the electorate demands minimized losses on our side (a very good argument, one leftists leveraged to try to get the US to disengage from previous wars), droning and it’s capabilities will continue.

eesmith 8y ago
"One could argue" many things. We have more than the two choices you present. We could add more people to the task instead of using machines. We can redefine what "enemy" means such that anyone who dies in a target area is an "enemy" - poof! no incidental collateral deaths. We can allow, say, the objections of the crew of the AC-130 to override possibly illegal orders which result in targeting hospitals. There are a great many things we can do; enough to suggest that what you propose as the goal to consider likely isn't an important US goal.
- mc32 8y ago
  Sure, the point is frustrating the govt’s attempt at better data means that they might have to revert to one of the options you posed which would be contrary to the goals sought by those objecting to google’s getting involved —undercutting their own argument.