13 ms·

> Google was enabling the DoD to be more efficient at killing people The world is complicated, and things are never as simple as that. Would you consider dron

> Google was enabling the DoD to be more efficient at killing people The world is complicated, and things are never as simple as that. Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? It is always too easy to ignore the world as it is and focus on a utopian case. War will happen, with whatever tools are available.

danharaj 8y ago
> Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? No one was ever going to carpet bomb a wedding.
- tome 8y ago
  They've carpet bombed other places when they didn't have the alternative of a targeted strike at a wedding.
  - ameister14 8y ago
    Really? When and where?
    - tome 8y ago
      Throughout the 20th century across the globe.
      - ameister14 8y ago
        Ah, I had assumed you were talking about any time in the last 30 years.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - ryanmercer 8y ago
      Operation Gomorrah which began on 24 July 1943 and lasted for 8 days and 7 nights. Hamburg, Germany. >killing 42,600 civilians and wounding 37,000 in Hamburg and virtually destroying most of the city. >The unusually warm weather and good conditions meant that the bombing was highly concentrated around the intended targets and also created a vortex and whirling updraft of super-heated air which created a 460 meter high tornado of fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_Wa... --- 17 January 1991 – 23 February 1991 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign >2,000–3,000 Iraqi civilians killed >10,000–12,000 killed >100,000 sorties, dropping 88,500 tons of bombs, >Coalition bombing raids destroyed Iraqi civilian infrastructure. 11 of Iraq's 20 major power stations and 119 substations were totally destroyed, while a further six major power stations were damaged.[18][19] At the end of the war, electricity production was at four percent of its pre-war levels. Bombs destroyed the utility of all major dams, most major pumping stations, and many sewage treatment plants, telecommunications equipment, port facilities, oil refineries and distribution, railroads and bridges were also destroyed. --- NATO bombing of Yugoslavia March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia >The bombing killed between 489 and 528 civilians, and destroyed bridges, industrial plants, public buildings, private businesses, as well as barracks and military installations. >In 2000, a year after the bombing ended, Group 17 published a survey dealing with damage and economic restoration. The report concluded that direct damage from the bombing totalled $3.8 billion, not including Kosovo, of which only 5% had been repaired at that time >In 2006, a group of economists from the G17 Plus party estimated the total economic losses resulting from the bombing were about $29.6 billion.
      - ameister14 8y ago
        Neither the Gulf War air campaign nor the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia qualifies as a 'carpet bombing.' Both struck individually targeted strategic targets while attempting to minimize civilian casualties.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  > No one was ever going to carpet bomb a wedding. Not a wedding, indeed, an entire town, with possibly dozens of weddings happening at the same time. Plus hospitals, schools, etc. If you had to pick between carpet bombing and smart bombs, which one would you pick? (And consider you don't have a choice, like the trolley problem, you NEED to pick one).
  - mrguyorama 8y ago
    >And consider you don't have a choice How do we not have a choice to NOT bomb a desert on the other side of the world?
  - 3131s 8y ago
    > And consider you don't have a choice, like the trolley problem, you NEED to pick one Can I choose to drop the bomb on Americans instead?
  - openfuture 8y ago
    Okay let's just assume I figured out a clever way around your constraints while still avoiding the answer you want us to give. Are you just going to add another constraint to hide from the truth? Can you at least accept that the burden of proof is on the guy who wants to go bomb random people not on the pacifists.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_Wa... We're in a world where the destructive properties of a modern army are so extreme that combat has evolved/devolved to medieval like small scale/intensity battle. Instead of targeting economic output, social networks of individuals are targeted. People always seek effective ways to kill their enemies in conflict.
ameister14 8y ago
>Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? That's not the alternative, though. Drones are used in hundreds of situations where without them, the US simply wouldn't have taken action.
- darawk 8y ago
  And it's your belief that not taking action would be better?
  - Tyrek 8y ago
    Are you certain that every drone strike that's ever been made has had a positive impact on the world?
    - Forbo 8y ago
      I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. Perhaps the inclusion of the absolutist "every drone strike... ever". But this raises a valid concern. Is drone striking weddings really winning the hearts and minds of people, or is it just setting up the next generation of (IMO, justified) hate toward the US? [0] [1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airstrike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airs... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haska_Meyna_wedding_party_airstrike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haska_Meyna_wedding_party_airs...
      - darawk 8y ago
        Do you believe that those outcomes were the intent of the person that authorized these missions?
        PhasmaFelis 8y ago
        It doesn't matter. Adults are expected to understand the potential consequences of their actions. If you knowingly fire missiles into a populated area, you don't get to say "oops, I didn't mean to" when you accidentally kill a few dozen innocent civilians.
natalyarostova 8y ago
Only the most dogmatic pacifists in the US still maintain that the US entering WWII was the wrong choice. Yet the US literally incinerated hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians through carpet fire-bombings. Thankfully, we seem to have left the world of total war. Whether nuclear weapons and targeted drone strikes made the world in some broad strokes more peaceful on purpose, well, probably not. Nonetheless, we haven't had carpet bombings anywhere near the scale of WWII in decades.
- crwalker 8y ago
  > Thankfully, we seem to have left the world of total war. Deaths in armed conflict form a fat-tailed distribution. Extreme events dominate, and the absence of any world wars for several decades is not evidence that humanity has gotten more peaceful if world wars happen roughly every couple hundred years. See Taleb, who is much more clear. http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/violencenobelsymposium.pdf http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/violencenobelsymposium.pdf
  - robax 8y ago
    Yuval Noah Harari has a different argument in his book Sapiens. He says that we’re living in the most peaceful period of human existence ever and it’s caused by a few factors. #1 the stakes are too high because of nuclear weapons and #2 now more than ever a country’s resources are the brains of its inhabitants, which can’t exactly be conquered. I think we’re definitely seeing the landscape of war changing. I really hope traditional bloody war is obsolete.
    - crwalker 8y ago
      Both views could be correct: Taleb's point is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I haven't read Sapiens, and I hope Harari is correct, but I'm not tracking the second argument. Certain governments believe they can conquer minds, as evidenced by detention/propaganda camps and universal surveillance/scoring. If a government with this perspective successfully invaded another country, wouldn't they institute a similar program there and expect similar results?
3131s 8y ago
> Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? Typical apologetics. It actually is quite simple, it all comes down to money like most everything else. The American government let 9/11 happen (there is ample evidence of that, in case you don't know) so that American companies could profiteer off of the ensuing conflict and so that the American government could further its strategic interests in the middle east. It's mostly only moronic Americans who believe that there is any nuance in all of this.
- nsalkmaar 8y ago
  Technology here on HN is designed to discourage stating such obvious things. Talking about this discouragement is not productive. You get that X is cool echo chamber. Tech has great potential to do good but first people have to want to use it like that.
andrepd 8y ago
>Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? Because there are more courses of action other than "drone strike" and "carpet bombing".
- ucaetano 8y ago
  > Because there are more courses of action other than "drone strike" and "carpet bombing". Indeed, but those courses aren't always available, and war will happen in the way war happens. If not, your argument isn't about drones, it is about pacifism. That's like saying "I'll magically lift everyone out of the way" in the trolley problem. Sure, it is a nice thought, but it is not an answer to the question. I'll ask again: if the only two options were carpet bombing and smart bombs, which one would you choose? Don't run away from the question.
  - kazen44 8y ago
    smart bombs is the obvious answer, but your question is has a false pretense. Carpet bombing and a drone strike are not in the same "solution space", its like trying to tighten your shoelaces with your hands or with a 10 ton excevator.
    - ucaetano 8y ago
      > Carpet bombing and a drone strike are not in the same "solution space", its like trying to tighten your shoelaces with your hands or with a 10 ton excevator. Oh, but they are (particularly because I'm not just including drone strikes, but smart bombs). Wanna destroy a factory, a power-plant, a bunker, a government office? In WW2, you'd just carpet-bomb the surrounding area and hope some bombs hit the target. Today, you deliver a payload to a specific part of it. Compare the bombing of Belgrade in the Balkan wars to any WW2 bombing run. There are two discussions in place: - How we make weapons more precise and limit collateral damage - How we reduce the need for weapons in the first place Both lead to a better situation than the status quo.
  - vladTheInhaler 8y ago
marricks 8y ago
That is such a false dichotomy. Consider arming police officers with tasers. We were promised it would be an alternative to guns and help protect civilians but instead police officers use tasers a ton and still shoot people a ton as well.[1] There’s always the excuse new smarter technologies will save lives but it ends up the “safer” they are the lower the threshold to use. 1. Da_chicken’s reply below has a good source!
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  > These men were able to give the counsel they gave because they were operating at an enormous psychological distance from the people who would be maimed and killed by the weapons systems that would result from the ideas they communicated to their sponsors. The lesson, therefore, is that the scientist and technologist must, by acts of will and of the imagination, actively strive to reduce such psychological distances, to counter the forces that tend to remove him from the consequences of his actions. He must -- it is as simple as this -- think of what he is actually doing. -- Joseph Weizenbaum in "Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment To Calculation" written in 1976, more timely than ever
- da_chicken 8y ago
  Research as shown that when police are armed with tasers, they will use them in situations where previously no violence would have been used at all. Additionally, tasers will be used not just to subdue an individual who is a threat, but also simply to punish those who fail to comply. Further, the police will ignore the safety limitations which would prohibit repeated use of a taser. You cannot escape the law of unintended consequences. https://www.alternet.org/story/149115/the_6_most_shocking_cases_of_police_stun-gun_abuse https://www.alternet.org/story/149115/the_6_most_shocking_ca...
  - ntsplnkv2 8y ago
    You can escape it if you actually think about the scenario on the ground. A taser can't replace a gun, it doesn't function like a gun, it's not as reliable as a gun, it doesn't have the range, etc. But it can be useful in lieu of physical force or if someone is resisting, which is what became its use case.
babuskov 8y ago
> Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? Weren't drones used to carefully select targets inside cities and other areas with civilians. I'm not sure carpet bombing is an alternative for those cases: "Carpet bombing of cities, towns, villages, or other areas containing a concentration of civilians is considered a war crime[5] as of the 1977 Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions." - source Wikipedia entry for Carpet Bombing
- srtjstjsj 8y ago
  That's irrelevant. There is no world police to stop the US from carpet bombing, nor would the US tolerate drone strikes against the USA as somehow acceptable.
drb91 8y ago
> Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? That’s a false dichotomy. You could do neither.
A2017U1 8y ago
> Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? That's the only alternative?

danharaj 8y ago

> Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? No one was ever going to carpet bomb a wedding.

tome 8y ago
They've carpet bombed other places when they didn't have the alternative of a targeted strike at a wedding.
- ameister14 8y ago
  Really? When and where?
  - tome 8y ago
    Throughout the 20th century across the globe.
    - ameister14 8y ago
      Ah, I had assumed you were talking about any time in the last 30 years.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - ryanmercer 8y ago
    Operation Gomorrah which began on 24 July 1943 and lasted for 8 days and 7 nights. Hamburg, Germany. >killing 42,600 civilians and wounding 37,000 in Hamburg and virtually destroying most of the city. >The unusually warm weather and good conditions meant that the bombing was highly concentrated around the intended targets and also created a vortex and whirling updraft of super-heated air which created a 460 meter high tornado of fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_Wa... --- 17 January 1991 – 23 February 1991 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign >2,000–3,000 Iraqi civilians killed >10,000–12,000 killed >100,000 sorties, dropping 88,500 tons of bombs, >Coalition bombing raids destroyed Iraqi civilian infrastructure. 11 of Iraq's 20 major power stations and 119 substations were totally destroyed, while a further six major power stations were damaged.[18][19] At the end of the war, electricity production was at four percent of its pre-war levels. Bombs destroyed the utility of all major dams, most major pumping stations, and many sewage treatment plants, telecommunications equipment, port facilities, oil refineries and distribution, railroads and bridges were also destroyed. --- NATO bombing of Yugoslavia March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia >The bombing killed between 489 and 528 civilians, and destroyed bridges, industrial plants, public buildings, private businesses, as well as barracks and military installations. >In 2000, a year after the bombing ended, Group 17 published a survey dealing with damage and economic restoration. The report concluded that direct damage from the bombing totalled $3.8 billion, not including Kosovo, of which only 5% had been repaired at that time >In 2006, a group of economists from the G17 Plus party estimated the total economic losses resulting from the bombing were about $29.6 billion.
    - ameister14 8y ago
      Neither the Gulf War air campaign nor the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia qualifies as a 'carpet bombing.' Both struck individually targeted strategic targets while attempting to minimize civilian casualties.
ucaetano 8y ago
> No one was ever going to carpet bomb a wedding. Not a wedding, indeed, an entire town, with possibly dozens of weddings happening at the same time. Plus hospitals, schools, etc. If you had to pick between carpet bombing and smart bombs, which one would you pick? (And consider you don't have a choice, like the trolley problem, you NEED to pick one).
- mrguyorama 8y ago
  >And consider you don't have a choice How do we not have a choice to NOT bomb a desert on the other side of the world?
- 3131s 8y ago
  > And consider you don't have a choice, like the trolley problem, you NEED to pick one Can I choose to drop the bomb on Americans instead?
- openfuture 8y ago
  Okay let's just assume I figured out a clever way around your constraints while still avoiding the answer you want us to give. Are you just going to add another constraint to hide from the truth? Can you at least accept that the burden of proof is on the guy who wants to go bomb random people not on the pacifists.
Spooky23 8y ago
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_Wa... We're in a world where the destructive properties of a modern army are so extreme that combat has evolved/devolved to medieval like small scale/intensity battle. Instead of targeting economic output, social networks of individuals are targeted. People always seek effective ways to kill their enemies in conflict.

ameister14 8y ago

>Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? That's not the alternative, though. Drones are used in hundreds of situations where without them, the US simply wouldn't have taken action.

darawk 8y ago
And it's your belief that not taking action would be better?
- Tyrek 8y ago
  Are you certain that every drone strike that's ever been made has had a positive impact on the world?
  - Forbo 8y ago
    I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. Perhaps the inclusion of the absolutist "every drone strike... ever". But this raises a valid concern. Is drone striking weddings really winning the hearts and minds of people, or is it just setting up the next generation of (IMO, justified) hate toward the US? [0] [1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airstrike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airs... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haska_Meyna_wedding_party_airstrike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haska_Meyna_wedding_party_airs...
    - darawk 8y ago
      Do you believe that those outcomes were the intent of the person that authorized these missions?
      - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
        It doesn't matter. Adults are expected to understand the potential consequences of their actions. If you knowingly fire missiles into a populated area, you don't get to say "oops, I didn't mean to" when you accidentally kill a few dozen innocent civilians.

natalyarostova 8y ago

Only the most dogmatic pacifists in the US still maintain that the US entering WWII was the wrong choice. Yet the US literally incinerated hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians through carpet fire-bombings. Thankfully, we seem to have left the world of total war. Whether nuclear weapons and targeted drone strikes made the world in some broad strokes more peaceful on purpose, well, probably not. Nonetheless, we haven't had carpet bombings anywhere near the scale of WWII in decades.

crwalker 8y ago
> Thankfully, we seem to have left the world of total war. Deaths in armed conflict form a fat-tailed distribution. Extreme events dominate, and the absence of any world wars for several decades is not evidence that humanity has gotten more peaceful if world wars happen roughly every couple hundred years. See Taleb, who is much more clear. http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/violencenobelsymposium.pdf http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/violencenobelsymposium.pdf
- robax 8y ago
  Yuval Noah Harari has a different argument in his book Sapiens. He says that we’re living in the most peaceful period of human existence ever and it’s caused by a few factors. #1 the stakes are too high because of nuclear weapons and #2 now more than ever a country’s resources are the brains of its inhabitants, which can’t exactly be conquered. I think we’re definitely seeing the landscape of war changing. I really hope traditional bloody war is obsolete.
  - crwalker 8y ago
    Both views could be correct: Taleb's point is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I haven't read Sapiens, and I hope Harari is correct, but I'm not tracking the second argument. Certain governments believe they can conquer minds, as evidenced by detention/propaganda camps and universal surveillance/scoring. If a government with this perspective successfully invaded another country, wouldn't they institute a similar program there and expect similar results?

3131s 8y ago

> Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? Typical apologetics. It actually is quite simple, it all comes down to money like most everything else. The American government let 9/11 happen (there is ample evidence of that, in case you don't know) so that American companies could profiteer off of the ensuing conflict and so that the American government could further its strategic interests in the middle east. It's mostly only moronic Americans who believe that there is any nuance in all of this.

nsalkmaar 8y ago
Technology here on HN is designed to discourage stating such obvious things. Talking about this discouragement is not productive. You get that X is cool echo chamber. Tech has great potential to do good but first people have to want to use it like that.

andrepd 8y ago

>Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? Because there are more courses of action other than "drone strike" and "carpet bombing".

ucaetano 8y ago
> Because there are more courses of action other than "drone strike" and "carpet bombing". Indeed, but those courses aren't always available, and war will happen in the way war happens. If not, your argument isn't about drones, it is about pacifism. That's like saying "I'll magically lift everyone out of the way" in the trolley problem. Sure, it is a nice thought, but it is not an answer to the question. I'll ask again: if the only two options were carpet bombing and smart bombs, which one would you choose? Don't run away from the question.
- kazen44 8y ago
  smart bombs is the obvious answer, but your question is has a false pretense. Carpet bombing and a drone strike are not in the same "solution space", its like trying to tighten your shoelaces with your hands or with a 10 ton excevator.
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    > Carpet bombing and a drone strike are not in the same "solution space", its like trying to tighten your shoelaces with your hands or with a 10 ton excevator. Oh, but they are (particularly because I'm not just including drone strikes, but smart bombs). Wanna destroy a factory, a power-plant, a bunker, a government office? In WW2, you'd just carpet-bomb the surrounding area and hope some bombs hit the target. Today, you deliver a payload to a specific part of it. Compare the bombing of Belgrade in the Balkan wars to any WW2 bombing run. There are two discussions in place: - How we make weapons more precise and limit collateral damage - How we reduce the need for weapons in the first place Both lead to a better situation than the status quo.
- vladTheInhaler 8y ago

marricks 8y ago

That is such a false dichotomy. Consider arming police officers with tasers. We were promised it would be an alternative to guns and help protect civilians but instead police officers use tasers a ton and still shoot people a ton as well.[1] There’s always the excuse new smarter technologies will save lives but it ends up the “safer” they are the lower the threshold to use. 1. Da_chicken’s reply below has a good source!

PavlovsCat 8y ago
> These men were able to give the counsel they gave because they were operating at an enormous psychological distance from the people who would be maimed and killed by the weapons systems that would result from the ideas they communicated to their sponsors. The lesson, therefore, is that the scientist and technologist must, by acts of will and of the imagination, actively strive to reduce such psychological distances, to counter the forces that tend to remove him from the consequences of his actions. He must -- it is as simple as this -- think of what he is actually doing. -- Joseph Weizenbaum in "Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment To Calculation" written in 1976, more timely than ever
da_chicken 8y ago
Research as shown that when police are armed with tasers, they will use them in situations where previously no violence would have been used at all. Additionally, tasers will be used not just to subdue an individual who is a threat, but also simply to punish those who fail to comply. Further, the police will ignore the safety limitations which would prohibit repeated use of a taser. You cannot escape the law of unintended consequences. https://www.alternet.org/story/149115/the_6_most_shocking_cases_of_police_stun-gun_abuse https://www.alternet.org/story/149115/the_6_most_shocking_ca...
- ntsplnkv2 8y ago
  You can escape it if you actually think about the scenario on the ground. A taser can't replace a gun, it doesn't function like a gun, it's not as reliable as a gun, it doesn't have the range, etc. But it can be useful in lieu of physical force or if someone is resisting, which is what became its use case.

babuskov 8y ago

> Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? Weren't drones used to carefully select targets inside cities and other areas with civilians. I'm not sure carpet bombing is an alternative for those cases: "Carpet bombing of cities, towns, villages, or other areas containing a concentration of civilians is considered a war crime[5] as of the 1977 Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions." - source Wikipedia entry for Carpet Bombing

srtjstjsj 8y ago
That's irrelevant. There is no world police to stop the US from carpet bombing, nor would the US tolerate drone strikes against the USA as somehow acceptable.

drb91 8y ago

> Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? That’s a false dichotomy. You could do neither.

A2017U1 8y ago

> Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? That's the only alternative?