7 ms·

Are you certain that every drone strike that's ever been made has had a positive impact on the world?

by Tyrek 8y ago

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.
    - darawk 8y ago
      > It doesn't matter. It absolutely matters. Intending to kill civilians and killing them accidentally are very, very different things. > 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. Are you alleging that they didn't understand the risks involved? Or are you alleging that they did understand the risks involved, and made a conscious decision that those risks were worth it? If the latter, do you have reason to believe that their calculation was wrong?
      - Tyrek 8y ago
        Well, I'm sure that intent has an impact, but the question is one of magnitude. You can't exactly solve extremism by telling them all to stop being mad at the US because the missile that killed their families 'was just a miss whoops my bad' I take issue with your stance that the burden of evidence lies with the 'let's not shoot missiles crowd', though. While we don't have specific evidence on the specific efficacy of individual drone strikes, I'd argue that the intelligence community's track record (or what's been declassified or widely known) does not inspire the greatest confidence in their ability to make nuanced, apolitical judgment.
        darawk 8y ago
        > I take issue with your stance that the burden of evidence lies with the 'let's not shoot missiles crowd', though. While we don't have specific evidence on the specific efficacy of individual drone strikes, I'd argue that the intelligence community's track record (or what's been declassified or widely known) does not inspire the greatest confidence in their ability to make nuanced, apolitical judgment. Well, we've elected people (who've then appointed people) to make those judgments on our behalf. Someone has to make them. If you have evidence that they're being made poorly, then that's something worth hearing. But what is that evidence? If you don't have such evidence...then are you arguing that nobody should be making decisions like that at all, ever?
      - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
        If you blow up a terrorist training camp out in the desert, and it turns out afterwards that there were a few civilian hostages or dependents on-site, that's unfortunate but arguably unavoidable. If you bomb an outdoor wedding party with dozens of visible women and children, and then return to fire again when ambulances are on the scene, that's not an "unfortunate accident". That's deadly negligence at the very best. You're trying to twist the second example into the framework of the first.
        darawk 8y ago
        > If you bomb an outdoor wedding party with dozens of visible women and children, and then return to fire again when ambulances are on the scene, that's not an "unfortunate accident". That's deadly negligence at the very best. You're trying to twist the second example into the framework of the first. Is it? Do you have a sense of what went into that particular decision? Was the wedding party the target, or were they hit accidentally? Did they know it was a wedding party? Did they actually do a double tap strike in this instance?
  - detaro 8y ago
    If you're merely incompetent to use the tools available to you appropriately (instead of maliciously misusing them), I can see why people don't want to give you sharper ones anyways.
    - darawk 8y ago
      Why do you think they are incompetent?
- cm2187 8y ago
  None of 9/11 hijackers were victimized by the US. Islamist militants don’t need drone strikes to hate the US.
  - freeflight 8y ago
    So this has now become a "We've always been at war with Islam!"? Is that kind of 1984esque discourse really helpful? For some proper context, I really suggest reading this CS Monitor piece from back in 2001 [0]. Keen observers will quickly realize that pretty much everything written there has become reality over these past 17 years. It should also be noted that there's a certain irony to it when the "Christian Science Monitor" is peeved about your religious rhetoric being a bit too much on the extreme end. This is something that seemingly passed by many US Americans like it never happened. But you can't declare yourself a "Christian nation" going on "crusades", hinging large parts of your popularity drive on this imagined "clash of the cultures", and then act all surprised and outraged when the opposite side also reacts with more radicalization. Just looking at the trends for global terrorism for these past 2 decades [1], there's a very clear picture to be found there. Before 2002 countries like India, Colombia and Algeria topped the "terrorism charts". But by 2003, as a response to the "War on Terror" started by the US, you already see Iraq and Afghanistan making their way up the list, steadily increasing in the number of attacks and fatalities until in 2005 they take the top. Since then there's been little change, only Pakistan making their way up there some years, one might wonder why? [2] But all three of these countries represent massive outliers and make up the vast majority of "Islamic terrorism", what do they all have in common? 9/11 was bad, no debate there. But the US's reaction to 9/11 was worse, it perfectly played into Osamas original intentions of starting a "culture clash", stigmatizing even moderate Islam in the Western world, making frustrated and discriminated moderates more likely to join his cause. In that context, the US pretty much kicked a hornet's nest down the street and still keeps kicking it to this day. Yet many US Americans keep wondering where the angry hornets are coming from and "why they hate us so much". [0] https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html [1] https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/globe/index.html https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/globe/index.html [2] http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/ http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/
xvector 8y ago
Now we are getting into indefinable moral calculus. If drone strikes have a net positive impact, are they justified? If you are in a train about to run over three people but can change the direction to run over one, do you do it?
darawk 8y ago
No. But we've elected and appointed people who's job it is to: a) be aware of all the information relevant to each operation b) make a judgment as to whether each individual operation is worthwhile Now, i'm not saying that makes them infallible. It certainly doesn't. There's a long history of people in such positions making poor choices. But if you're implying that they are, i'd like to see some evidence. Because what I see is a lot of "civilians died, therefore it was bad", but very little consideration of the objective of the mission, and whether or not the possibility of collateral damage was justified. What we do know is that smart people in positions of power believed that it was, and i'm happy to second-guess those beliefs if given good reason, but thus far i've never seen anyone give good reason in the case of these drone strikes.
- Forbo 8y ago
  > ...thus far i've never seen anyone give good reason in the case of these drone strikes. Because the very action they are using to eliminate enemy combatants may in fact be creating more of them?
  - darawk 8y ago
    > Because the very action they are using to eliminate enemy combatants may in fact be creating more of them? That's an interesting statement. Do you have evidence for it?
    - antgiant 8y ago
      Yep. “over the past 15 years. Increased US efforts are correlated with a worsening of the overall terror situation. Statistical modeling indicates for every additional billion dollars spent and 1,000 American troops sent to fight the war on terror, the number of terror attacks worldwide increased by 19 (data available from the author). Furthermore, the model finds up to 80 percent of the variation in the number of worldwide terror attacks since 9/11 can be explained by just those two variables—US money spent and military members sent to fight the war on terror. The data for both money spent and troops deployed come from the Congressional Research Service publication, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11 by Amy Belasco. The number of terror attacks is from the Global Terrorism Database, hosted by the University of Maryland.” “The data show countries the US invaded had 143 more terror attacks per year than countries the US did not invade. Similarly, countries in which the US conducted drone strikes were home to 395 more terror attacks per year than those where the US did not.” https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/issues/Spring_2016/13_Goepner.pdf https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/issues/Spring...
landryraccoon 8y ago
I write code, and I'm quite certain that not every line of code written has had a positive impact on the world.
dwaltrip 8y ago
Most statements that attempt to characterize every single instance of a phenomenon are heavily flawed, regardless of what they say. Especially in complex systems, such as those involving humans. It seems to me that your question is coming at this from the wrong angle.

Are you certain that every drone strike that's ever been made has had a positive impact on the world?

by Tyrek 8y ago

Are you certain that every drone strike that's ever been made has had a positive impact on the world?

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.
  - darawk 8y ago
    > It doesn't matter. It absolutely matters. Intending to kill civilians and killing them accidentally are very, very different things. > 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. Are you alleging that they didn't understand the risks involved? Or are you alleging that they did understand the risks involved, and made a conscious decision that those risks were worth it? If the latter, do you have reason to believe that their calculation was wrong?
    - Tyrek 8y ago
      Well, I'm sure that intent has an impact, but the question is one of magnitude. You can't exactly solve extremism by telling them all to stop being mad at the US because the missile that killed their families 'was just a miss whoops my bad' I take issue with your stance that the burden of evidence lies with the 'let's not shoot missiles crowd', though. While we don't have specific evidence on the specific efficacy of individual drone strikes, I'd argue that the intelligence community's track record (or what's been declassified or widely known) does not inspire the greatest confidence in their ability to make nuanced, apolitical judgment.
      - darawk 8y ago
        > I take issue with your stance that the burden of evidence lies with the 'let's not shoot missiles crowd', though. While we don't have specific evidence on the specific efficacy of individual drone strikes, I'd argue that the intelligence community's track record (or what's been declassified or widely known) does not inspire the greatest confidence in their ability to make nuanced, apolitical judgment. Well, we've elected people (who've then appointed people) to make those judgments on our behalf. Someone has to make them. If you have evidence that they're being made poorly, then that's something worth hearing. But what is that evidence? If you don't have such evidence...then are you arguing that nobody should be making decisions like that at all, ever?
    - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
      If you blow up a terrorist training camp out in the desert, and it turns out afterwards that there were a few civilian hostages or dependents on-site, that's unfortunate but arguably unavoidable. If you bomb an outdoor wedding party with dozens of visible women and children, and then return to fire again when ambulances are on the scene, that's not an "unfortunate accident". That's deadly negligence at the very best. You're trying to twist the second example into the framework of the first.
      - darawk 8y ago
        > If you bomb an outdoor wedding party with dozens of visible women and children, and then return to fire again when ambulances are on the scene, that's not an "unfortunate accident". That's deadly negligence at the very best. You're trying to twist the second example into the framework of the first. Is it? Do you have a sense of what went into that particular decision? Was the wedding party the target, or were they hit accidentally? Did they know it was a wedding party? Did they actually do a double tap strike in this instance?
- detaro 8y ago
  If you're merely incompetent to use the tools available to you appropriately (instead of maliciously misusing them), I can see why people don't want to give you sharper ones anyways.
  - darawk 8y ago
    Why do you think they are incompetent?
cm2187 8y ago
None of 9/11 hijackers were victimized by the US. Islamist militants don’t need drone strikes to hate the US.
- freeflight 8y ago
  So this has now become a "We've always been at war with Islam!"? Is that kind of 1984esque discourse really helpful? For some proper context, I really suggest reading this CS Monitor piece from back in 2001 [0]. Keen observers will quickly realize that pretty much everything written there has become reality over these past 17 years. It should also be noted that there's a certain irony to it when the "Christian Science Monitor" is peeved about your religious rhetoric being a bit too much on the extreme end. This is something that seemingly passed by many US Americans like it never happened. But you can't declare yourself a "Christian nation" going on "crusades", hinging large parts of your popularity drive on this imagined "clash of the cultures", and then act all surprised and outraged when the opposite side also reacts with more radicalization. Just looking at the trends for global terrorism for these past 2 decades [1], there's a very clear picture to be found there. Before 2002 countries like India, Colombia and Algeria topped the "terrorism charts". But by 2003, as a response to the "War on Terror" started by the US, you already see Iraq and Afghanistan making their way up the list, steadily increasing in the number of attacks and fatalities until in 2005 they take the top. Since then there's been little change, only Pakistan making their way up there some years, one might wonder why? [2] But all three of these countries represent massive outliers and make up the vast majority of "Islamic terrorism", what do they all have in common? 9/11 was bad, no debate there. But the US's reaction to 9/11 was worse, it perfectly played into Osamas original intentions of starting a "culture clash", stigmatizing even moderate Islam in the Western world, making frustrated and discriminated moderates more likely to join his cause. In that context, the US pretty much kicked a hornet's nest down the street and still keeps kicking it to this day. Yet many US Americans keep wondering where the angry hornets are coming from and "why they hate us so much". [0] https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html [1] https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/globe/index.html https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/globe/index.html [2] http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/ http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/

xvector 8y ago

Now we are getting into indefinable moral calculus. If drone strikes have a net positive impact, are they justified? If you are in a train about to run over three people but can change the direction to run over one, do you do it?

darawk 8y ago

No. But we've elected and appointed people who's job it is to: a) be aware of all the information relevant to each operation b) make a judgment as to whether each individual operation is worthwhile Now, i'm not saying that makes them infallible. It certainly doesn't. There's a long history of people in such positions making poor choices. But if you're implying that they are, i'd like to see some evidence. Because what I see is a lot of "civilians died, therefore it was bad", but very little consideration of the objective of the mission, and whether or not the possibility of collateral damage was justified. What we do know is that smart people in positions of power believed that it was, and i'm happy to second-guess those beliefs if given good reason, but thus far i've never seen anyone give good reason in the case of these drone strikes.

Forbo 8y ago
> ...thus far i've never seen anyone give good reason in the case of these drone strikes. Because the very action they are using to eliminate enemy combatants may in fact be creating more of them?
- darawk 8y ago
  > Because the very action they are using to eliminate enemy combatants may in fact be creating more of them? That's an interesting statement. Do you have evidence for it?
  - antgiant 8y ago
    Yep. “over the past 15 years. Increased US efforts are correlated with a worsening of the overall terror situation. Statistical modeling indicates for every additional billion dollars spent and 1,000 American troops sent to fight the war on terror, the number of terror attacks worldwide increased by 19 (data available from the author). Furthermore, the model finds up to 80 percent of the variation in the number of worldwide terror attacks since 9/11 can be explained by just those two variables—US money spent and military members sent to fight the war on terror. The data for both money spent and troops deployed come from the Congressional Research Service publication, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11 by Amy Belasco. The number of terror attacks is from the Global Terrorism Database, hosted by the University of Maryland.” “The data show countries the US invaded had 143 more terror attacks per year than countries the US did not invade. Similarly, countries in which the US conducted drone strikes were home to 395 more terror attacks per year than those where the US did not.” https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/issues/Spring_2016/13_Goepner.pdf https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/issues/Spring...

landryraccoon 8y ago

I write code, and I'm quite certain that not every line of code written has had a positive impact on the world.

dwaltrip 8y ago

Most statements that attempt to characterize every single instance of a phenomenon are heavily flawed, regardless of what they say. Especially in complex systems, such as those involving humans. It seems to me that your question is coming at this from the wrong angle.