4 ms·

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 see

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.

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.