6 ms·

Regarding man in the loop: if you're a bystander, (and not the target) you want a drone attacking the primary target as opposed to a manned platform. With a ma

Regarding man in the loop: if you're a bystander, (and not the target) you want a drone attacking the primary target as opposed to a manned platform. With a manned platform, you have a chance of getting hit by a platform with a rear weapons officer, (F-15E, F/A-18) to verify minimal bystanders. But they're probably concentrating on not missing. Or you can get hit by a single occupancy aircraft (F-16, F-35) who will be dropping pre programmed ordinance. With a drone, you have three separate teams of people watching the video steam. Anyone in that loop can say, "hey there are a lot of civilians here" and everything's on pause until the target moves. And now we have an explosiveless munition with limited opportunities for collateral damage and this outlet is falling over themselves talking about gruesome it is. Having worked in the field makes me really sick of ignorant journalists reporting on it. The outrage the antiwar press tends to carry makes their ignorance more annoying than the journalists talking about AGI, quantum computing, or deep learning.

ghettoimp 7y ago
I want to agree with you, insofar as that being outraged over what appears to be a more precise weapon makes very little sense. On the other hand, it still seems horrible to kill people by remote control. Supposing it becomes possible to very, very precisely kill exactly who you want, from far away, with no judicial process, etc., is this good? War should be painful for both sides, because if it is not, what stops us from engaging in it?
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  Why is it different or worse than low tech ranged weapons like a mortar or cannon that are also safe(ish) for the person firing, but also risk killing innocents bystanders?
  - behringer 7y ago
    We'll see what you think of it when foreign countries start flying strike drones in the US.
    - masonic 7y ago
      The U.S. has been attacked by contemporary equivalents since 1941 (incendiary balloons, submarines attacking land and sea targets, etc.) (Edit: this happened to be submitted earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21738908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21738908 )
    - WillPostForFood 7y ago
      Same question to you: Should I feel differently if foreign countries fire a cannon, flies a plane and drop a bomb, or shoots a sniper rifle vs a drone strike? I don't want any of that, but if, for example, Putin decided he wanted to assassinate a Russian defector in the US, I'd rather he do it with a precision drone strike than a car bomb, or dispersing some poison that might affect bystanders. It's like suggesting laser guided bombs are worse than unguided bombs.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  This war is painful for both sides nonsense is immoral as the only way it works is if you put ISIS on the same moral level as a coalition of western democracies. What would keep these weapons from being abused would be the ability to arrest these criminals. But since we can’t arrest them, killing their generals is the next best option. And killing their generals without risk to our soldiers is mind bogglingly better.
- DubiousPusher 7y ago
  Aerial bombardment of places known to be in use by civilians has been par for the course for most the 20th century and so far all of the 21st century. I think the ship has long sailed on death by remote control. The subject has been studied and the gap between the destruction a bomber pilot causes and how they feel about it is well documented. What is new is the use of signals intelligence to choose whom to target in a non-combat zone. I think that's the novel piece that should horrify people.
- abathur 7y ago
  Right. Roughly my concern. In the immediate, not killing civilians is great. In the longer run, being able to take out who you want without killing innocents modifies the moral calculus. You don't have to justify the turpitude of your target against the lives of innocent bystanders. So eventually the question approaches: how do you hold steadfast moral red-lines regarding the use of such weapons as PR costs and blowback approach zero?
- etangent 7y ago
  > insofar as that being outraged over what appears to be a more precise weapon makes very little sense. There is a rational sense to be outraged over more precise weaponry: precision incentivizes super-states to use it more, which in turn incentivizes things like surveillance. At the long tail of this shift of incentives one can see a a quite spooky/sinister picture emerging.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > Supposing it becomes possible to very, very precisely kill exactly who you want, from far away, with no judicial process, etc., is this good? This is only possible if the killing happens in total secrecy. The court of public opinion is a judicial process, and an important one, despite having only informal procedures.
  - yabadabadoes 7y ago
    The court of public opinion is open to desensitization and gaming. You can actually reach the point where people are killed merely to test limits within a safe backlash or to keep the public desensitized.
Vomzor 7y ago
Anti-war? Ignorant? That’s a weird take of one of the most in-depth military newssites out there. Also not the impression I got reading the article, more like a military geek describing every detail of this new ‘toy’ than anti-war.
- hatsunearu 7y ago
  Agreed, I think the article says "beware gruesome" because you normally don't expect a Twitter video to be of a dude that's been mangled by some flying knives into some horrible mess.
- BrandonMarc 7y ago
  Agreed. While I believe the article points out the gruesomeness, it also carefully notes how much less collateral damage is likely. I came away from the article a bit sickened by the concept, yes, but also proud we have a weapon whose purpose is to avoid accidental civilian deaths. And I have to admit, as gory as this weapon sounds, it's no worse than explosives. I don't like war. I figure no one in their right mind should. I do acknowledge there's a time for it, and even a time for assassination (i.e. al Qaeda and similar). I pray our leaders are able to make the right decisions regarding when these things are needed, and I'm nervous that some of our leaders don't fit that bill (moreso, that a future crop of leaders might abuse these powers to terrible ends).
  - nerdponx 7y ago
    Are the after-effects of an explosion any less gruesome?
elil17 7y ago
If you’re a bystander, what you want is for foreign governments to stop firing ammunitions at you. No ones saying that precision targeting isn’t the lesser of two evils, but the “anti war press” is outraged for a reason: the number of innocent people the United States should be murdering is not “fewer,” but zero
- esyir 7y ago
  Yes, and better precision is how you get that, especially with the targets deliberately using said innocents as shields.
  - elil17 7y ago
    I mean sure, precision is one way to get that. Not firing missiles is the other way. I like my way because it doesn't cost millions of dollars and assume that the US government is qualified to judge who should live and die in other countries.
- duelingjello 7y ago
  Perpetual, pan-colonial war killing people almost at random from the sky without police or criminal justice due-process or a shred of HUMINT. It's viewed as acceptable because they're not Americans, so they're not human beings. And if you question it, you're dismissed as "just a lefty" because murdering people at random is apparently okay and good for the military-industrial complex economy.
stevenhuang 7y ago
> this outlet is falling over themselves talking about gruesome it is. But they're not. The warning they gave was a trigger warning in regards to the video, where it quite prominently showed a man beheaded. The article itself was level-headed and seemed to portray the developments with interest and a healthy dose of respect. I understand your general sentiments and while I would usually agree with you, it seems your criticism is misplaced here.
x86_64Ubuntu 7y ago
I don't think any bystander wants to see that typ eof actoin go down in front of them. And the effect of drone tech hasn't been to lower casualties, but allow us to bomb and blast more and more people without the heavy logistics tail of a manned platform.
PavlovsCat 7y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a-drone-pilot-creech-air-force-base-nevada https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a-dron... > The aim of the missions was to track, and when the conditions were deemed right, kill suspected insurgents. That’s not how they put it, though. They would talk about “cutting the grass before it grows out of control”, or “pulling the weeds before they overrun the lawn”. > And then there were the children. The airmen would be flying the Predators over a village in the tribal areas of Pakistan, say, when a series of smaller black shadows would appear across their screens – telling them that kids were at the scene. > They called them “fun-sized terrorists”. [..] > Toward the end of his service, Haas switched to training new recruits in the technology of drone warfare. That shocked him anew, as he discovered that many of the younger intake were gung-ho about the power they wielded at their fingertips. “They just wanted to kill,” he said. > He remembers one training session with a student in which they were flying live over Afghanistan. The student said that a group of people on the ground looked suspicious. > Why? Haas asked. Because they look like they are up to no good, the student replied. > Would you act on that? the instructor asked. Sure, the student said. > Haas immediately pulled him from his seat, took over the mission himself, and promptly failed the student. “I tried to get the students to understand that preservation of innocent life had to take priority.” > Because he failed the student, Haas was later rebuked by senior officers. They told him that they were short of bodies to keep the drones flying, and they ordered him to pass students in future so that there would be a sufficient number trained and ready to go.
aaomidi 7y ago
What kind of centrist take is this? If I'm a bystander I don't want a country that I have literally never been to, or a country that's thousands of miles away from me operating drones in my country.
- avs733 7y ago
  thank you. I can't imagine how these same people would react if china started killing civilians in the US that they deemed to be terrorists through a secret process.
  - abathur 7y ago
    Maybe like an NBA GM or something.
behringer 7y ago
It's not ignorance. Drone strikes are outright illegal under international law and quite frankly are unethical. Also they're extrajudicial killings when used against citizens.
- nradov 7y ago
  Which specific law is being violated?
  - scotty79 7y ago
    Maybe human right to live?
  - peterashford 7y ago
    Pretty sure they don't have permission to fly in other people's airspace. Pretty sure you need permission to kill people in other countries unless you have a declaration of war.
    - nradov 7y ago
      You might be pretty sure, but that's not actually how international law works. Again, which specific law was violated?
      - peterashford 7y ago
        I'm going to say that you're the one making the implication that the US can kill people wherever it likes, you can do the homework.
jstewartmobile 7y ago
The outrage is justified. Syria is on the other side of the world, and poses no threat to us. How many Americans can even locate it on a map? Stated reason for involvment was chemical weapons attack--which is strongly reminiscent of Iraq's imaginary WMDs. To anyone who believes the official story on our involvement, I have a bridge to sell you.
- pergadad 7y ago
  Chemical weapons attacks by the government against Kurdish and FSA-held cities did indeed happen. Not to justify US targeted killings, but it's not the same as Iraq's CIA-invented WMDs.
  - jstewartmobile 7y ago
    According to who? The OPCW? The UN? All of these organizations are compromised. Per Wikipedia: It was argued by The Guardian's columnist George Monbiot that Director-General José Bustani was being forced out by the U.S. government, despite the convention insisting the OPCW "shall not seek or receive instructions from any government"; the US had tried to persuade Brazil to recall Bustani. Monbiot wrote that the U.S. had tried other measures, although the convention also indicates that states should "not seek to influence" staff. ... The removal was subsequently determined to be improper by an Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization and consequently Bustani was awarded €50,000 in moral damages, his pay for the remainder of his second term, and his legal costs
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 7y ago
      How Bashar al-Assad Gassed His Own People | NYT - Visual Investigations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2X84JZINcI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2X84JZINcI
      - jstewartmobile 7y ago
        Bellingcat has received grants from Adessium, Digital News Initiative, Open Society Foundation, Pax, Porticus, National Endowment for Democracy, The Dutch Postcode Lottery, Zinc Network (funded by British foreign office) The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a U.S. non-profit soft power organization that was founded in 1983 with the stated goal of promoting democracy abroad. Bellingcat also receives funding via PAX which is directly funded by Netherlands Foreign Ministry. Soft-power apparati for three NATO members, funding some rando to look at videos and offer opinions on them... still have that bridge to sell. We know for certain that none of the pasty fucks at the NYT spent enough time in Syria to do their own actual investgation. If anyone has time to trace funding for the other orgs, I'm sure that even more gold will be struck.
avs733 7y ago
Just to be clear...the war zone writes pieces that are almost universally positive towards the military and are often targeted at military porn type folks. They write for their audience...who love the military and want to know all the details about their cool toys so they can feel closer. I'm unclear if you are referring the them specifically in your final paragraph, but if you are, you are way off base.
djrobstep 7y ago
As a bystander, I imagine I would want people like you to stop participating in ongoing legitimized murder, please.
duelingjello 7y ago
Another point to consider: For better or worse, each US drone strike requires an in-the-loop officer to authorize each weapon release. So whether it's a targeted assassination of HUMINT-confirmed high-value terrorist or the indiscriminate slaughtering of a funeral procession of innocent villagers based on HUMINT-free AI speculation, the US military's policies stipulate that, theoretically, there should always be someone to hold accountable for these successes and these crimes. See also: Jeremy Scahill's Dirty Wars (2013)
happytoexplain 7y ago
I was absolutely with you until you broadly referred to the "anti-war press" and their "outrage" and "ignorance", and then I was absolutely against you. Being "anti-war" is not the issue of pragmatism you were originally criticising, and spreading hatred for generalized groups of people is the foundation from which arises anything and everything reasonable people criticise in the first place (this principle is especially important when the target is journalists, who have been murdered in a nation as "developed" as the US as a direct result of people who don't like what they print encouraging others to hate them).
- TheAdamAndChe 7y ago
  Being sick of something does not equal hatred. This comment contains amplification of emotion and black-or-white thinking that is more apt to cause defensive responses than anything else. It's best to argue against the best interpretation of a post instead of the worst.

ghettoimp 7y ago

I want to agree with you, insofar as that being outraged over what appears to be a more precise weapon makes very little sense. On the other hand, it still seems horrible to kill people by remote control. Supposing it becomes possible to very, very precisely kill exactly who you want, from far away, with no judicial process, etc., is this good? War should be painful for both sides, because if it is not, what stops us from engaging in it?

WillPostForFood 7y ago
Why is it different or worse than low tech ranged weapons like a mortar or cannon that are also safe(ish) for the person firing, but also risk killing innocents bystanders?
- behringer 7y ago
  We'll see what you think of it when foreign countries start flying strike drones in the US.
  - masonic 7y ago
    The U.S. has been attacked by contemporary equivalents since 1941 (incendiary balloons, submarines attacking land and sea targets, etc.) (Edit: this happened to be submitted earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21738908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21738908 )
  - WillPostForFood 7y ago
    Same question to you: Should I feel differently if foreign countries fire a cannon, flies a plane and drop a bomb, or shoots a sniper rifle vs a drone strike? I don't want any of that, but if, for example, Putin decided he wanted to assassinate a Russian defector in the US, I'd rather he do it with a precision drone strike than a car bomb, or dispersing some poison that might affect bystanders. It's like suggesting laser guided bombs are worse than unguided bombs.
merpnderp 7y ago
This war is painful for both sides nonsense is immoral as the only way it works is if you put ISIS on the same moral level as a coalition of western democracies. What would keep these weapons from being abused would be the ability to arrest these criminals. But since we can’t arrest them, killing their generals is the next best option. And killing their generals without risk to our soldiers is mind bogglingly better.
DubiousPusher 7y ago
Aerial bombardment of places known to be in use by civilians has been par for the course for most the 20th century and so far all of the 21st century. I think the ship has long sailed on death by remote control. The subject has been studied and the gap between the destruction a bomber pilot causes and how they feel about it is well documented. What is new is the use of signals intelligence to choose whom to target in a non-combat zone. I think that's the novel piece that should horrify people.
abathur 7y ago
Right. Roughly my concern. In the immediate, not killing civilians is great. In the longer run, being able to take out who you want without killing innocents modifies the moral calculus. You don't have to justify the turpitude of your target against the lives of innocent bystanders. So eventually the question approaches: how do you hold steadfast moral red-lines regarding the use of such weapons as PR costs and blowback approach zero?
etangent 7y ago
> insofar as that being outraged over what appears to be a more precise weapon makes very little sense. There is a rational sense to be outraged over more precise weaponry: precision incentivizes super-states to use it more, which in turn incentivizes things like surveillance. At the long tail of this shift of incentives one can see a a quite spooky/sinister picture emerging.
thaumasiotes 7y ago
> Supposing it becomes possible to very, very precisely kill exactly who you want, from far away, with no judicial process, etc., is this good? This is only possible if the killing happens in total secrecy. The court of public opinion is a judicial process, and an important one, despite having only informal procedures.
- yabadabadoes 7y ago
  The court of public opinion is open to desensitization and gaming. You can actually reach the point where people are killed merely to test limits within a safe backlash or to keep the public desensitized.

Vomzor 7y ago

Anti-war? Ignorant? That’s a weird take of one of the most in-depth military newssites out there. Also not the impression I got reading the article, more like a military geek describing every detail of this new ‘toy’ than anti-war.

hatsunearu 7y ago
Agreed, I think the article says "beware gruesome" because you normally don't expect a Twitter video to be of a dude that's been mangled by some flying knives into some horrible mess.
BrandonMarc 7y ago
Agreed. While I believe the article points out the gruesomeness, it also carefully notes how much less collateral damage is likely. I came away from the article a bit sickened by the concept, yes, but also proud we have a weapon whose purpose is to avoid accidental civilian deaths. And I have to admit, as gory as this weapon sounds, it's no worse than explosives. I don't like war. I figure no one in their right mind should. I do acknowledge there's a time for it, and even a time for assassination (i.e. al Qaeda and similar). I pray our leaders are able to make the right decisions regarding when these things are needed, and I'm nervous that some of our leaders don't fit that bill (moreso, that a future crop of leaders might abuse these powers to terrible ends).
- nerdponx 7y ago
  Are the after-effects of an explosion any less gruesome?

elil17 7y ago

If you’re a bystander, what you want is for foreign governments to stop firing ammunitions at you. No ones saying that precision targeting isn’t the lesser of two evils, but the “anti war press” is outraged for a reason: the number of innocent people the United States should be murdering is not “fewer,” but zero

esyir 7y ago
Yes, and better precision is how you get that, especially with the targets deliberately using said innocents as shields.
- elil17 7y ago
  I mean sure, precision is one way to get that. Not firing missiles is the other way. I like my way because it doesn't cost millions of dollars and assume that the US government is qualified to judge who should live and die in other countries.
duelingjello 7y ago
Perpetual, pan-colonial war killing people almost at random from the sky without police or criminal justice due-process or a shred of HUMINT. It's viewed as acceptable because they're not Americans, so they're not human beings. And if you question it, you're dismissed as "just a lefty" because murdering people at random is apparently okay and good for the military-industrial complex economy.

stevenhuang 7y ago

> this outlet is falling over themselves talking about gruesome it is. But they're not. The warning they gave was a trigger warning in regards to the video, where it quite prominently showed a man beheaded. The article itself was level-headed and seemed to portray the developments with interest and a healthy dose of respect. I understand your general sentiments and while I would usually agree with you, it seems your criticism is misplaced here.

x86_64Ubuntu 7y ago

I don't think any bystander wants to see that typ eof actoin go down in front of them. And the effect of drone tech hasn't been to lower casualties, but allow us to bomb and blast more and more people without the heavy logistics tail of a manned platform.

PavlovsCat 7y ago

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a-drone-pilot-creech-air-force-base-nevada https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a-dron... > The aim of the missions was to track, and when the conditions were deemed right, kill suspected insurgents. That’s not how they put it, though. They would talk about “cutting the grass before it grows out of control”, or “pulling the weeds before they overrun the lawn”. > And then there were the children. The airmen would be flying the Predators over a village in the tribal areas of Pakistan, say, when a series of smaller black shadows would appear across their screens – telling them that kids were at the scene. > They called them “fun-sized terrorists”. [..] > Toward the end of his service, Haas switched to training new recruits in the technology of drone warfare. That shocked him anew, as he discovered that many of the younger intake were gung-ho about the power they wielded at their fingertips. “They just wanted to kill,” he said. > He remembers one training session with a student in which they were flying live over Afghanistan. The student said that a group of people on the ground looked suspicious. > Why? Haas asked. Because they look like they are up to no good, the student replied. > Would you act on that? the instructor asked. Sure, the student said. > Haas immediately pulled him from his seat, took over the mission himself, and promptly failed the student. “I tried to get the students to understand that preservation of innocent life had to take priority.” > Because he failed the student, Haas was later rebuked by senior officers. They told him that they were short of bodies to keep the drones flying, and they ordered him to pass students in future so that there would be a sufficient number trained and ready to go.

aaomidi 7y ago

What kind of centrist take is this? If I'm a bystander I don't want a country that I have literally never been to, or a country that's thousands of miles away from me operating drones in my country.

avs733 7y ago
thank you. I can't imagine how these same people would react if china started killing civilians in the US that they deemed to be terrorists through a secret process.
- abathur 7y ago
  Maybe like an NBA GM or something.

behringer 7y ago

It's not ignorance. Drone strikes are outright illegal under international law and quite frankly are unethical. Also they're extrajudicial killings when used against citizens.

nradov 7y ago
Which specific law is being violated?
- scotty79 7y ago
  Maybe human right to live?
- peterashford 7y ago
  Pretty sure they don't have permission to fly in other people's airspace. Pretty sure you need permission to kill people in other countries unless you have a declaration of war.
  - nradov 7y ago
    You might be pretty sure, but that's not actually how international law works. Again, which specific law was violated?
    - peterashford 7y ago
      I'm going to say that you're the one making the implication that the US can kill people wherever it likes, you can do the homework.

jstewartmobile 7y ago

The outrage is justified. Syria is on the other side of the world, and poses no threat to us. How many Americans can even locate it on a map? Stated reason for involvment was chemical weapons attack--which is strongly reminiscent of Iraq's imaginary WMDs. To anyone who believes the official story on our involvement, I have a bridge to sell you.

pergadad 7y ago
Chemical weapons attacks by the government against Kurdish and FSA-held cities did indeed happen. Not to justify US targeted killings, but it's not the same as Iraq's CIA-invented WMDs.
- jstewartmobile 7y ago
  According to who? The OPCW? The UN? All of these organizations are compromised. Per Wikipedia: It was argued by The Guardian's columnist George Monbiot that Director-General José Bustani was being forced out by the U.S. government, despite the convention insisting the OPCW "shall not seek or receive instructions from any government"; the US had tried to persuade Brazil to recall Bustani. Monbiot wrote that the U.S. had tried other measures, although the convention also indicates that states should "not seek to influence" staff. ... The removal was subsequently determined to be improper by an Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization and consequently Bustani was awarded €50,000 in moral damages, his pay for the remainder of his second term, and his legal costs
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 7y ago
    How Bashar al-Assad Gassed His Own People | NYT - Visual Investigations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2X84JZINcI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2X84JZINcI
    - jstewartmobile 7y ago
      Bellingcat has received grants from Adessium, Digital News Initiative, Open Society Foundation, Pax, Porticus, National Endowment for Democracy, The Dutch Postcode Lottery, Zinc Network (funded by British foreign office) The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a U.S. non-profit soft power organization that was founded in 1983 with the stated goal of promoting democracy abroad. Bellingcat also receives funding via PAX which is directly funded by Netherlands Foreign Ministry. Soft-power apparati for three NATO members, funding some rando to look at videos and offer opinions on them... still have that bridge to sell. We know for certain that none of the pasty fucks at the NYT spent enough time in Syria to do their own actual investgation. If anyone has time to trace funding for the other orgs, I'm sure that even more gold will be struck.

avs733 7y ago

Just to be clear...the war zone writes pieces that are almost universally positive towards the military and are often targeted at military porn type folks. They write for their audience...who love the military and want to know all the details about their cool toys so they can feel closer. I'm unclear if you are referring the them specifically in your final paragraph, but if you are, you are way off base.

djrobstep 7y ago

As a bystander, I imagine I would want people like you to stop participating in ongoing legitimized murder, please.

duelingjello 7y ago

Another point to consider: For better or worse, each US drone strike requires an in-the-loop officer to authorize each weapon release. So whether it's a targeted assassination of HUMINT-confirmed high-value terrorist or the indiscriminate slaughtering of a funeral procession of innocent villagers based on HUMINT-free AI speculation, the US military's policies stipulate that, theoretically, there should always be someone to hold accountable for these successes and these crimes. See also: Jeremy Scahill's Dirty Wars (2013)

happytoexplain 7y ago

I was absolutely with you until you broadly referred to the "anti-war press" and their "outrage" and "ignorance", and then I was absolutely against you. Being "anti-war" is not the issue of pragmatism you were originally criticising, and spreading hatred for generalized groups of people is the foundation from which arises anything and everything reasonable people criticise in the first place (this principle is especially important when the target is journalists, who have been murdered in a nation as "developed" as the US as a direct result of people who don't like what they print encouraging others to hate them).

TheAdamAndChe 7y ago
Being sick of something does not equal hatred. This comment contains amplification of emotion and black-or-white thinking that is more apt to cause defensive responses than anything else. It's best to argue against the best interpretation of a post instead of the worst.