5 ms·

There is something philosophically unsettling about drone strikes. Violence, particularly mortal violence is naturally self-policing in nature. In order to kill

There is something philosophically unsettling about drone strikes. Violence, particularly mortal violence is naturally self-policing in nature. In order to kill something you must be there and risk injury yourself. Technology based distance attacks like drones and missiles remove this doubley: you not only de-risk your person, you are also more emotionally distanced from the attack as well. It is not a trend that bodes well for humanity in the future.

senectus1 7y ago
its interesting in that, you can happily hurl big rocks at people in castles via catapults while being unable to see what /who you're hitting and be perfectly safe, yet you might not (I know i dont) have an issue with it like you (and I) do with drones... its basically the same thing. just an upscale in range, and really safe distance is safe distance... doesn't really change the situation when you add more 00's to the distance.
- liquidise 7y ago
  Point taken, though i would argue that somewhat-blindly hurling rocks at walls is materially different from intentionally ending a specific life from across the world.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  Iran is not sieging our castle, that is the key difference. We are the aggressor, even if the acts of the other side are morally repulsive
  - TechBro8615 7y ago
    They were sieging our embassy...
    - gremlinsinc 7y ago
      In basically their territory. Why do we need a presence or embassy there? Why waste the money? Does Canada have an embassy in every nation? Does France? What about Sweden and Denmark? If we absolutely need a presence why not have coalition embassies? A single office w/ 1 member from each coalition country, and equal soldiers from all countries and diplomatically making unilateral decisions as a group not based on any country's agenda.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - freeflight 7y ago
      Many people are getting the time-line of events completely wrong. The embassy protests (call it riots if you like) were a response to the US killing at least 25 of them [0], which was a response to them supposedly being responsible for the death of US contractor [1]. There were no casualties during the embassy protests, yet the consequence of that was the US killing QS, and other PMU leadership, near Baghdad airport. Now some people are peddling stories about how those two were supposedly not connected at all, and the US allegedly had intelligence how QS was planning to attack US Americans all over the world, which comes across as a bit of FUD to distract from the reality that the US just assassinated the general of another nation. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50951742 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50951742 [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/27/politics/iraq-rocket-attack-contractor-killed/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/27/politics/iraq-rocket-atta...
  - true_religion 7y ago
    In his example, we are the aggressor too as we have the catapult and they have the castle.
  - Jon_Lowtek 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_proxy_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_prox...
    - boomboomsubban 7y ago
      Saudi Arabia is a US client kingdom, their proxy war would not be happening if Iran was still a US subject.
- jancsika 7y ago
  its interesting in that, you can happily guide drones to kill people at great distances while being unable to see what /who you're hitting and be perfectly safe, yet you might not (I know i dont) have an issue with it like you (and I) do with triggering self-replicating nanobots anonymously through the internet to target victims based on a secret set of metadata ruled by a secret set of laws... its basically the same thing. just an upscale in precision, and really safe distance is safe distance... doesn't really change the situation when you add more dangerous technology to the mix.
  - senectus1 7y ago
    heh, you make my point forward looking. I think I agree.
ryacko 7y ago
Collateral Murder was disturbing in the enthusiasm by the soldiers for what is a grainy video. I wonder if WWII bombardiers when looking down and seeing miniature sized vehicles and buildings were as enthusiastic as well. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike_transcript https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstri... Amusingly, the video starts with Wikileaks decrypted the video, but all drone feeds are unencrypted.
- dogma1138 7y ago
  It’s not a drone feed it’s form the gun sight camera of an Apache attack helicopter. Drone traffic is now predominantly encrypted it’s not the early 2000’s anymore when you could tune into drone feeds with a satellite dish and $30 worth of software.
  - ryacko 7y ago
    The aircraft flies like a plane, not a helicopter. Helicopters have very small turning radii. I think it is from a drone.
    - robkop 7y ago
      The first sentence of the wiki page mentions that they were in two AH-64 Apache Helicopters. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstri...
    - dogma1138 7y ago
      You seem to not understand that the gunsight is gimbaled and can rotate and zoom independently of the helicopter flight path. Also the turn radius of a helicopter is what ever the pilot wants it too be. For CAS you wouldn’t turn on a dime you’ll take slow wide turns to allow the gunner to maintain their engagement and for you to have better situational awareness you aren’t evading incoming fire here. This isn’t a drone you do get such angels form fixed wing drone footage, not to mention that drones don’t come with auto cannons...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gremlinsinc 7y ago
With drones and the right technology you could literally assassinate virtually ANYBODY in the world covertly without any trace tying it back to you. Esp w/ smaller and smaller drones. Imagine a drone the size of a fly landing on a President or someone high up in a country and 'stinging' them with a poison then flying back home? Even if it was caught/destroyed it wouldn't always be traceable if using vpn's and pre-programmed flight patterns and ai. There's been nothing like this ever. It's scary and kind of fascinating in a JAmes Bond kind of way, but still mostly scary. If the tech is ever open sourced or democratized it could be used to attack anyone you don't agree with or who's wronged you, etc... basically a super tiny hitman that isn't as stupid/error prone as a real hitman.
megous 7y ago
OTOH, in this instance it's at least elites killing each other directly with their toys, and not peasants killing each other for a bunch of megalomaniacs and war spoils. This was a real decaptitation strike. US killed a major mastermind, organizer, and an icon to some. It's akin to killing Al-Baghdadi or Hannibal at the peak of their successes. It will be interesting to see how that will end up working out.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Artillery. Bombers. Naval torpedoes. And worst of all, land mines. We've had this problem for a long time. If anything, drones have the problem less than land mines do.

senectus1 7y ago

its interesting in that, you can happily hurl big rocks at people in castles via catapults while being unable to see what /who you're hitting and be perfectly safe, yet you might not (I know i dont) have an issue with it like you (and I) do with drones... its basically the same thing. just an upscale in range, and really safe distance is safe distance... doesn't really change the situation when you add more 00's to the distance.

liquidise 7y ago
Point taken, though i would argue that somewhat-blindly hurling rocks at walls is materially different from intentionally ending a specific life from across the world.
boomboomsubban 7y ago
Iran is not sieging our castle, that is the key difference. We are the aggressor, even if the acts of the other side are morally repulsive
- TechBro8615 7y ago
  They were sieging our embassy...
  - gremlinsinc 7y ago
    In basically their territory. Why do we need a presence or embassy there? Why waste the money? Does Canada have an embassy in every nation? Does France? What about Sweden and Denmark? If we absolutely need a presence why not have coalition embassies? A single office w/ 1 member from each coalition country, and equal soldiers from all countries and diplomatically making unilateral decisions as a group not based on any country's agenda.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - freeflight 7y ago
    Many people are getting the time-line of events completely wrong. The embassy protests (call it riots if you like) were a response to the US killing at least 25 of them [0], which was a response to them supposedly being responsible for the death of US contractor [1]. There were no casualties during the embassy protests, yet the consequence of that was the US killing QS, and other PMU leadership, near Baghdad airport. Now some people are peddling stories about how those two were supposedly not connected at all, and the US allegedly had intelligence how QS was planning to attack US Americans all over the world, which comes across as a bit of FUD to distract from the reality that the US just assassinated the general of another nation. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50951742 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50951742 [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/27/politics/iraq-rocket-attack-contractor-killed/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/27/politics/iraq-rocket-atta...
- true_religion 7y ago
  In his example, we are the aggressor too as we have the catapult and they have the castle.
- Jon_Lowtek 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_proxy_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_prox...
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    Saudi Arabia is a US client kingdom, their proxy war would not be happening if Iran was still a US subject.
jancsika 7y ago
its interesting in that, you can happily guide drones to kill people at great distances while being unable to see what /who you're hitting and be perfectly safe, yet you might not (I know i dont) have an issue with it like you (and I) do with triggering self-replicating nanobots anonymously through the internet to target victims based on a secret set of metadata ruled by a secret set of laws... its basically the same thing. just an upscale in precision, and really safe distance is safe distance... doesn't really change the situation when you add more dangerous technology to the mix.
- senectus1 7y ago
  heh, you make my point forward looking. I think I agree.

ryacko 7y ago

Collateral Murder was disturbing in the enthusiasm by the soldiers for what is a grainy video. I wonder if WWII bombardiers when looking down and seeing miniature sized vehicles and buildings were as enthusiastic as well. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike_transcript https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstri... Amusingly, the video starts with Wikileaks decrypted the video, but all drone feeds are unencrypted.

dogma1138 7y ago
It’s not a drone feed it’s form the gun sight camera of an Apache attack helicopter. Drone traffic is now predominantly encrypted it’s not the early 2000’s anymore when you could tune into drone feeds with a satellite dish and $30 worth of software.
- ryacko 7y ago
  The aircraft flies like a plane, not a helicopter. Helicopters have very small turning radii. I think it is from a drone.
  - robkop 7y ago
    The first sentence of the wiki page mentions that they were in two AH-64 Apache Helicopters. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstri...
  - dogma1138 7y ago
    You seem to not understand that the gunsight is gimbaled and can rotate and zoom independently of the helicopter flight path. Also the turn radius of a helicopter is what ever the pilot wants it too be. For CAS you wouldn’t turn on a dime you’ll take slow wide turns to allow the gunner to maintain their engagement and for you to have better situational awareness you aren’t evading incoming fire here. This isn’t a drone you do get such angels form fixed wing drone footage, not to mention that drones don’t come with auto cannons...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

gremlinsinc 7y ago

With drones and the right technology you could literally assassinate virtually ANYBODY in the world covertly without any trace tying it back to you. Esp w/ smaller and smaller drones. Imagine a drone the size of a fly landing on a President or someone high up in a country and 'stinging' them with a poison then flying back home? Even if it was caught/destroyed it wouldn't always be traceable if using vpn's and pre-programmed flight patterns and ai. There's been nothing like this ever. It's scary and kind of fascinating in a JAmes Bond kind of way, but still mostly scary. If the tech is ever open sourced or democratized it could be used to attack anyone you don't agree with or who's wronged you, etc... basically a super tiny hitman that isn't as stupid/error prone as a real hitman.

megous 7y ago

OTOH, in this instance it's at least elites killing each other directly with their toys, and not peasants killing each other for a bunch of megalomaniacs and war spoils. This was a real decaptitation strike. US killed a major mastermind, organizer, and an icon to some. It's akin to killing Al-Baghdadi or Hannibal at the peak of their successes. It will be interesting to see how that will end up working out.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

Artillery. Bombers. Naval torpedoes. And worst of all, land mines. We've had this problem for a long time. If anything, drones have the problem less than land mines do.