4 ms·
I have this queasy feeling that the U.S. is killing people who aren't actually taking up arms against it. If doing so shaves a few percent off the error rate t
by ipsin 8y ago
I have this queasy feeling that the U.S. is killing people who aren't actually taking up arms against it.
If doing so shaves a few percent off the error rate that's saving innocent lives, but it's also becoming an essential part of a process that kills innocent people?
I'd prefer standing against the slaughter.
- 3131s 8y agoIt is fact, not a feeling. How many of the roughly 1 million people dead in the last 15 years of the "War of Terror" ever directly attacked the US or US citizens?
- mattnewton 8y agoThat’s the problem with preemptive strikes against individuals who aren’t part of a nation that declared war against you.. who’s t say they wouldn’t have attacked you? The metrics are inpossible, and the government is free to redefine people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time as probably guilty anyways.
- privacypoller 8y agoKilling someone who, if left alive, might kill you is arguably a worst justification than those used by actual terrorists. It throws away the very pretext of correcting a wrong, perceived or otherwise. As software developers we should see the problem here with "premature optimization". It's an incredibly inefficient use of resources with limited success in addressing unplanned situations. Sounds a lot like the war in terror.
- Kalium 8y agoHave you ever seen an engineer waste hours and days on a premature optimization? I have. Have you seen the same thing sometimes turn later into remarkable prescience, correctly anticipating some future problem and solving it before it happens? I've seen that too. Government and policy are rarely about certainty. They're generally and risks and probabilities, anticipated costs and expected values. That's the domain of statement and spies, and not for people who like clear certainties.
- citysurrounded 8y agoEver seen Psycho-Pass? It explores some of these notions in greater depth.
- Veelox 8y ago1 million dead in 15 years seems a lot higher than any other number I have seen. Do you have a citation for this?
- Cookiesaurusbex 8y agoThe 1 million number I've seen floating around for a while was just for the Iraq war, not even including the other wars/conflicts we are involved in. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-deaths-survey/iraq-conflict-has-killed-a-million-iraqis-survey-idUSL3048857920080130 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-deaths-survey/iraq-c...
- refurb 8y agoever directly attacked the US or US citizens? Why do you draw the line at "directly attacked"? We have laws that make it a crime to conspire to murder. I don't think it's unreasonable to go after people who are conspiring to attack the US or US citizens.
- acct1771 8y agoIf they're within range of our borders, and people, sure.
- djajshgsjja 8y agoWhy does the border matter? If somebody across the border is getting ready to fire a cruise middle at me, should I just let it happen?
- 3131s 8y agoThe point is that very few of these people had any intention, let alone capability, to commit a terrorist act against the US. Most of them were civilians or young men who joined their countries' militaries to defend against an invading force.
- nunya213 8y agoYou should change your reference point, assuming drone warfare is coming and is not banned in some way who would you rather be the world leader in that space? Alibaba and China or Google and the US?
- tripzilch 8y agoUh, that question sounds like your typical US Elections; No good answers and there's an implication we're supposed to pick the "least bad" one. Thank goodness the world is just slightly too big to be manipulated into a two-party deadlock.
- Kalium 8y agoYou can stand against opiod addiction and the lives it has taken, working to abolish them completely. Or you can work to reduce the harm it does.