4 ms·
seems small when compared to the overall effects of war "An estimated 3.6-3.8 million people died indirectly in post-9/11 war zones, bringing the total death t
by someothherguyy 2mo ago
seems small when compared to the overall effects of war
"An estimated 3.6-3.8 million people died indirectly in post-9/11 war zones, bringing the total death toll to at least 4.5-4.7 million and counting."
https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/costs/human https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/costs/human
- monkpit 2mo agoWhat point are you trying to make, exactly?
- ethbr1 2mo agoAn important one that often that gets lost in "drone strikes bad" internet debating: the cost of the alternative. If a nation is conducting drone strikes on another nation's territory, the alternative is usually conventional forces at scale on the ground*. As the Iraq occupation showed, conventional ground forces at scale cause an even larger number of civilian deaths. So drone strikes, if kinetic intervention is pre-decided, are a less-bad option from a civilian casualty perspective. * Granted, there might be a decision not to deploy conventional forces because of the risk / cost, but if there are regular drone strikes, it feels like the aggressor country is past that Rubicon.
- gusgus01 2mo agoIsn't "if there are regular drone strikes, it feels like the aggressor country is past that Rubicon." kind of self-refuting? Conventional forces aren't deployed in many instances where regular drone strikes are used, thus the country didn't feel it was the right risk/cost to deploy conventional forces. At the very least, it's a statement that deserves more debate, and I'd point to the many examples of how reducing cost and risk tends to increase the rate of an activity.