4 ms·

6. Killing someone by clicking a button and watching the explosion on a TV is much easier than pulling a trigger in the real-world

Gud 4y ago
It may or may not be easier to remotely kill someone else from across the world, but I suspect that drone warfare will evolve quickly so it’s drone vs drone. I suspect few people would feel bad about shooting down some pieces of metal and plastic.
Damogran6 4y ago
The PTSD articles from people in Las Vegas driving drones in the Middle East seem to indicate otherwise. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/15/us/drones-airstrikes-ptsd.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/15/us/drones-airstrikes-ptsd...
- bozhark 4y ago
  It’s not the killing. It’s the watching, tracking, and recording. It’s the months of getting to know every aspect of the individuals. They become real, not just the ‘enemy’.
ethbr0 4y ago
From what I hear, PTSD is pretty bad among stateside UAV operators. https://dronecenter.bard.edu/burdens-war-crews-drone-aircraft/ https://dronecenter.bard.edu/burdens-war-crews-drone-aircraf...
XorNot 4y ago
This is a false ethical concern: it's harder in person because the other guy can shoot back.
- greenpresident 4y ago
  This contributes another ethical quality though: if the other person can shoot back, you have a right to go all out in order to defend yourself. The same cannot be said for unmanned warfare, where the immediate danger is asymmetric.
  - samatman 4y ago
    I don't think it's possible to reconcile the battlefield with an ethics of self defense. You can pick a side that way, yes, but the doctrines of justifiable homicide simply don't hold up in battle.
    - Someone 4y ago
      In modern wars, especially those were one party is a lot stronger than the other and wants to keep the moral high ground, ethics does come into play. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement: “Rules of engagement (ROE) are the internal rules or directives afforded military forces (including individuals) that define the circumstances, conditions, degree, and manner in which the use of force, or actions which might be construed as provocative, may be applied. They provide authorization for and/or limits on, among other things, the use of force and the employment of certain specific capabilities. In some nations, articulated ROE have the status of guidance to military forces, while in other nations, ROE constitute lawful command. Rules of engagement do not normally dictate how a result is to be achieved, but will indicate what measures may be unacceptable.” Soldiers won’t be allowed to destroy a house on the grounds that it can be used by a sniper, for example, but must have reasonable certainty that it is being used as such.
      - samatman 4y ago
        Yes but not the ethics of self defense, such as a doctrine of clear and present danger. Self defense doesn't have a concept of a combatant, only an immediate threat to the safety of yourself or another.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
lbriner 4y ago
Isn't the difference more about collateral damage? In the battle, you have at least an inkling of the person you are shooting being an enemy, if you are ordered to bomb a house and find out that a load of kids were killed as well as the target, it becomes much more traumatic. I have zero military experience so just guessing!
hindsightbias 4y ago
Attended a dinner with dozens of active and retired pilots from three services. The highlight were two speakers who saw combat in the Gulf War I. Wing Commander’s SiL (F-16) pilot and son (SAR medic). They loved the formers gun camera videos and stories. They squirmed and looked at their desserts when the latter showed up close and personal pics of the “Highway of Death”in Kuwait. Miles and miles of burned bodies in the sands. Pilots don’t have to watch in 4k like the button clickers do.
YurgenJurgensen 4y ago
I don't think the majority of deaths in combat have been from humans killing other humans that they can see with their eyes for a long time. Possibly well over a hundred years. If killing someone through a camera is action-at-a-distance, so is blowing up an opaque metal box that you know probably has four humans in it, or firing your artillery piece at a grid square that probably has some humans in it, or dropping a bomb on a glowing blob on a thermal sensor that's probably a human. Even in daytime infantry-on-infantry combat, at a lot of ranges you're not shooting at people, you're shooting at piece of cover you saw gunfire emanate from. All of these partially-removed actions are also mainly what we're seeing drones do well at. While one could design a killer robot to go inside buildings and shoot people while looking them in the eye, the complexities and timeframes of close-range combat make it seems like the very last place for robots to replace infantry.

Gud 4y ago

It may or may not be easier to remotely kill someone else from across the world, but I suspect that drone warfare will evolve quickly so it’s drone vs drone. I suspect few people would feel bad about shooting down some pieces of metal and plastic.

Damogran6 4y ago

The PTSD articles from people in Las Vegas driving drones in the Middle East seem to indicate otherwise. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/15/us/drones-airstrikes-ptsd.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/15/us/drones-airstrikes-ptsd...

bozhark 4y ago
It’s not the killing. It’s the watching, tracking, and recording. It’s the months of getting to know every aspect of the individuals. They become real, not just the ‘enemy’.

ethbr0 4y ago

From what I hear, PTSD is pretty bad among stateside UAV operators. https://dronecenter.bard.edu/burdens-war-crews-drone-aircraft/ https://dronecenter.bard.edu/burdens-war-crews-drone-aircraf...

XorNot 4y ago

This is a false ethical concern: it's harder in person because the other guy can shoot back.

greenpresident 4y ago
This contributes another ethical quality though: if the other person can shoot back, you have a right to go all out in order to defend yourself. The same cannot be said for unmanned warfare, where the immediate danger is asymmetric.
- samatman 4y ago
  I don't think it's possible to reconcile the battlefield with an ethics of self defense. You can pick a side that way, yes, but the doctrines of justifiable homicide simply don't hold up in battle.
  - Someone 4y ago
    In modern wars, especially those were one party is a lot stronger than the other and wants to keep the moral high ground, ethics does come into play. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement: “Rules of engagement (ROE) are the internal rules or directives afforded military forces (including individuals) that define the circumstances, conditions, degree, and manner in which the use of force, or actions which might be construed as provocative, may be applied. They provide authorization for and/or limits on, among other things, the use of force and the employment of certain specific capabilities. In some nations, articulated ROE have the status of guidance to military forces, while in other nations, ROE constitute lawful command. Rules of engagement do not normally dictate how a result is to be achieved, but will indicate what measures may be unacceptable.” Soldiers won’t be allowed to destroy a house on the grounds that it can be used by a sniper, for example, but must have reasonable certainty that it is being used as such.
    - samatman 4y ago
      Yes but not the ethics of self defense, such as a doctrine of clear and present danger. Self defense doesn't have a concept of a combatant, only an immediate threat to the safety of yourself or another.
- Manuel_D 4y ago

lbriner 4y ago

Isn't the difference more about collateral damage? In the battle, you have at least an inkling of the person you are shooting being an enemy, if you are ordered to bomb a house and find out that a load of kids were killed as well as the target, it becomes much more traumatic. I have zero military experience so just guessing!

hindsightbias 4y ago

Attended a dinner with dozens of active and retired pilots from three services. The highlight were two speakers who saw combat in the Gulf War I. Wing Commander’s SiL (F-16) pilot and son (SAR medic). They loved the formers gun camera videos and stories. They squirmed and looked at their desserts when the latter showed up close and personal pics of the “Highway of Death”in Kuwait. Miles and miles of burned bodies in the sands. Pilots don’t have to watch in 4k like the button clickers do.

YurgenJurgensen 4y ago

I don't think the majority of deaths in combat have been from humans killing other humans that they can see with their eyes for a long time. Possibly well over a hundred years. If killing someone through a camera is action-at-a-distance, so is blowing up an opaque metal box that you know probably has four humans in it, or firing your artillery piece at a grid square that probably has some humans in it, or dropping a bomb on a glowing blob on a thermal sensor that's probably a human. Even in daytime infantry-on-infantry combat, at a lot of ranges you're not shooting at people, you're shooting at piece of cover you saw gunfire emanate from. All of these partially-removed actions are also mainly what we're seeing drones do well at. While one could design a killer robot to go inside buildings and shoot people while looking them in the eye, the complexities and timeframes of close-range combat make it seems like the very last place for robots to replace infantry.