5 ms·

I basically agree with the last points. As to the drone strikes, I believe there is potential there for decent things. Who is to say these would not grant the p

I basically agree with the last points. As to the drone strikes, I believe there is potential there for decent things. Who is to say these would not grant the power to stop a war by executing key individuals in a scenario where a manned strike would be prohibitive? And yet there is a clear moral hazard of facilitating murder. I’m not wise enough to see where the balance lies. I choose not to work on projects like that but I have trouble condemning some of these things out of hand.

fakescience 8y ago
Yeah, I think we have a fundamental difference in our beliefs about the effectiveness of violence (i.e. assassination via drones) to promote world peace. Hard to know what wars have been prevented via assassination, but if you might look into all the evidence of violence continuing or escalating after assassinations (how many "heads" of ISIS have been killed in drone strikes? and check out all the US activity in Latin America...). But that discussion goes beyond the graveyard of a hacker news comments section. In any case, thanks for the thoughtful responses.
pizza234 8y ago
> I’m not wise enough to see where the balance lies. Oh, there is actually a very clearcut line for this; it's coincisively described by the following headline: "If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding, We'd Ground Our Fleet"[⁰] [⁰] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/if-a-drone-strike-hit-an-american-wedding-wed-ground-our-fleet/282373/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/if-a-dr...
- Quarrelsome 8y ago
  I don't think its that simple. Weddings may constitute a collection of individuals key to a war effort and in striking a wedding one might prevent the devastation of a prolonged conflict. Also Middle Eastern weddings can occasionally be mis-interpreted as militant given the propensity for arms fire in celebration. If a drone strike hit an American wedding they would ground their _home_ fleet. Its a key difference. The information for an electorate of a democratic state to make more empathetic choices are available its just a question of whether: * The electorate are wilfully ignorant of foreign suffering (as its tortuous to read) * The electorate are kept ignorant intentionally or unintentionally as a product of the conflict for eye balls between media institutions. * The electorate are not able to make impactful choices due to the type of democracy they have. I'd argue its a bit of every one of those things. I prefer to measure things in outcomes and I would posit the major difference in supplying or not supplying arms to a conflict is merely the level of guilt from the origin of supply. People are still going to die be it by drone, missile, mortar, ak-47 or spear. We could argue that arms sales can enable conflict by giving one side an apparent advantage that they choose to capitalise on but that's a messy problem to investigate. Surely to wish to capitalise means that someone has already drawn the lines and is considering hostilities. What makes a war? The lines being drawn or the weapons or a combination of many factors multiplied over time and key events or decisions made by actors on either side? One may decide to war without advantage, one may choose not to war with advantage. So I don't think its as clear cut as weapon sales == war.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
    >> I don't think its that simple. Weddings may constitute a collection of individuals key to a war effort and in striking a wedding one might prevent the devastation of a prolonged conflict. Same for a hospital (patching up wounded enemy combatants) or a school (educating future insurgents). Or a nursery, football stadium, shopping mall, etc etc...
    - Quarrelsome 8y ago
      don't be so flippant. That's not at all what I was saying.
      - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
        I'm not being flippant. You commented that there might be legitimate reasons to bomb a wedding. Well, there are similar reasons to bomb hospitals etc, yet we don't accept that this should be done. If I misunderstood your original comment, please clarify.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        Quarrelsome 8y ago
        you suggested bombing schools to "prevent future generations of insurgents". You're advocating genocide. You were being flippant but now you're acting innocent over it which belies a fabricated ignorance that is further insulting. Conflict and arms is a complex topic and simplifying it to "just don't kill people lol" is crass at best. Either engage with the arguments or go to a school about to be bombed in this perceived reality you've fabricated where I represent your perfect demon to squabble with. If that wasn't clear enough: I am not fucking advocating genocide.
        YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
        You said there may be merit to bombing weddings. Why is it any different to bombing hospitals, nurseries, scholyards etc? Those are all civilian targets. Edit: In the spirit of reconcilliation, I would like to explain that I didn't accuse you of anything, much less advocating genocide (I don't even think that bombing a school is genocide; infanticide, at scale, maybe- but, genocide? I don't see that). I felt you are trying to do something extremely risky, to justify killing Y civilians by the number X of combatants that would also be killed. I don't think Y > 0 can ever be morally justified and I don't think that a targeted strike against any number of enemy combatants in a civilian area is, either, no matter the tactical outcome. Dropping bombs on the heads of people going about peacefull activities is just wrong, any way you cut it. Hence my comment- we don't accept the bombing of hospitals, regardless of their tactical value as targets, so why would we accept bombing weddings to kill some terrorists? It's clear you find the idea of bombing hospitals or schools revolting, yet you're OK with bombing a wedding? I don't understand that.
odabaxok 8y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM

fakescience 8y ago

Yeah, I think we have a fundamental difference in our beliefs about the effectiveness of violence (i.e. assassination via drones) to promote world peace. Hard to know what wars have been prevented via assassination, but if you might look into all the evidence of violence continuing or escalating after assassinations (how many "heads" of ISIS have been killed in drone strikes? and check out all the US activity in Latin America...). But that discussion goes beyond the graveyard of a hacker news comments section. In any case, thanks for the thoughtful responses.

pizza234 8y ago

> I’m not wise enough to see where the balance lies. Oh, there is actually a very clearcut line for this; it's coincisively described by the following headline: "If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding, We'd Ground Our Fleet"[⁰] [⁰] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/if-a-drone-strike-hit-an-american-wedding-wed-ground-our-fleet/282373/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/if-a-dr...

Quarrelsome 8y ago
I don't think its that simple. Weddings may constitute a collection of individuals key to a war effort and in striking a wedding one might prevent the devastation of a prolonged conflict. Also Middle Eastern weddings can occasionally be mis-interpreted as militant given the propensity for arms fire in celebration. If a drone strike hit an American wedding they would ground their _home_ fleet. Its a key difference. The information for an electorate of a democratic state to make more empathetic choices are available its just a question of whether: * The electorate are wilfully ignorant of foreign suffering (as its tortuous to read) * The electorate are kept ignorant intentionally or unintentionally as a product of the conflict for eye balls between media institutions. * The electorate are not able to make impactful choices due to the type of democracy they have. I'd argue its a bit of every one of those things. I prefer to measure things in outcomes and I would posit the major difference in supplying or not supplying arms to a conflict is merely the level of guilt from the origin of supply. People are still going to die be it by drone, missile, mortar, ak-47 or spear. We could argue that arms sales can enable conflict by giving one side an apparent advantage that they choose to capitalise on but that's a messy problem to investigate. Surely to wish to capitalise means that someone has already drawn the lines and is considering hostilities. What makes a war? The lines being drawn or the weapons or a combination of many factors multiplied over time and key events or decisions made by actors on either side? One may decide to war without advantage, one may choose not to war with advantage. So I don't think its as clear cut as weapon sales == war.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
  >> I don't think its that simple. Weddings may constitute a collection of individuals key to a war effort and in striking a wedding one might prevent the devastation of a prolonged conflict. Same for a hospital (patching up wounded enemy combatants) or a school (educating future insurgents). Or a nursery, football stadium, shopping mall, etc etc...
  - Quarrelsome 8y ago
    don't be so flippant. That's not at all what I was saying.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
      I'm not being flippant. You commented that there might be legitimate reasons to bomb a wedding. Well, there are similar reasons to bomb hospitals etc, yet we don't accept that this should be done. If I misunderstood your original comment, please clarify.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - Quarrelsome 8y ago
        you suggested bombing schools to "prevent future generations of insurgents". You're advocating genocide. You were being flippant but now you're acting innocent over it which belies a fabricated ignorance that is further insulting. Conflict and arms is a complex topic and simplifying it to "just don't kill people lol" is crass at best. Either engage with the arguments or go to a school about to be bombed in this perceived reality you've fabricated where I represent your perfect demon to squabble with. If that wasn't clear enough: I am not fucking advocating genocide.
        YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
        You said there may be merit to bombing weddings. Why is it any different to bombing hospitals, nurseries, scholyards etc? Those are all civilian targets. Edit: In the spirit of reconcilliation, I would like to explain that I didn't accuse you of anything, much less advocating genocide (I don't even think that bombing a school is genocide; infanticide, at scale, maybe- but, genocide? I don't see that). I felt you are trying to do something extremely risky, to justify killing Y civilians by the number X of combatants that would also be killed. I don't think Y > 0 can ever be morally justified and I don't think that a targeted strike against any number of enemy combatants in a civilian area is, either, no matter the tactical outcome. Dropping bombs on the heads of people going about peacefull activities is just wrong, any way you cut it. Hence my comment- we don't accept the bombing of hospitals, regardless of their tactical value as targets, so why would we accept bombing weddings to kill some terrorists? It's clear you find the idea of bombing hospitals or schools revolting, yet you're OK with bombing a wedding? I don't understand that.

odabaxok 8y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM