4 ms·

> He was told that they were carrying rifles on their shoulders, but for all he knew, they were shepherd’s staffs. Still, the directive from somewhere above, a

by ArikBe 13y ago

> He was told that they were carrying rifles on their shoulders, but for all he knew, they were shepherd’s staffs. Still, the directive from somewhere above, a mysterious chain of command that led straight to his headset, was clear: confirmed weapons. Can someone elaborate on how these decisions are made?

badman_ting 13y ago
An illuminating question just in its asking. (Why aren't we reading about those who make the decisions instead of the guy who holds the joystick?)
nadaviv 13y ago
A relevant Guardian article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-k... "The president's underlings compile their proposed lists of who should be executed, and the president - at a charming weekly event dubbed by White House aides as "Terror Tuesday" - then chooses from "baseball cards" and decrees in total secrecy who should die. The power of accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner are all consolidated in this one man, and those powers are exercised in the dark."
- noir_lord 13y ago
  You have to wonder what the response would be if it was the French President making such decisions about drone strikes on people in New York. There is no longer even the pretence that the US and it's allies are the "good guys" (it was a shallow cover to start with..), now it's just the naked execution of power with an attached "what you going to do about it" to the rest of the world. It would be war crimes if we where at sodding war.
jws 13y ago
Remote targeting has been a part of modern warfare for a century now. Forward observers identify targets, a command procedure is followed, and artillery men fire shells at targets they can not see over distances of hundreds of meters to tens of kilometers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_fire for a typical decision making process. The significant change here isn't that the distance is three orders of magnitude greater, or the required number of projectiles two orders of magnitude fewer. The sensor operator sees what he is doing and the effect. He is not in danger, he is not in a kill or be killed situation, but is called on to kill and observe the results. It is different psychological territory from where most combat soldiers operate.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  Also, there is a huge psychological difference between a plane pilot dropping a bomb on an 'anonymous' target and observing a hit/explosion, versus the original article drone pilot observing the targets in a non-combat-action situation, dropping the bomb, and then monitoring the aftermath - not only the actual explosion, but the scared/suffering behavior of nearby people. The result of the explosion is the same, but the impact on the soldier is vastly different. In general, a standard healthy homo sapiens isn't really psychologically suited for killing others and handling it well, and thus most of the article is not about the killing but about living with your conscience afterwards.

by ArikBe 13y ago

badman_ting 13y ago

An illuminating question just in its asking. (Why aren't we reading about those who make the decisions instead of the guy who holds the joystick?)

nadaviv 13y ago

A relevant Guardian article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-k... "The president's underlings compile their proposed lists of who should be executed, and the president - at a charming weekly event dubbed by White House aides as "Terror Tuesday" - then chooses from "baseball cards" and decrees in total secrecy who should die. The power of accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner are all consolidated in this one man, and those powers are exercised in the dark."

noir_lord 13y ago
You have to wonder what the response would be if it was the French President making such decisions about drone strikes on people in New York. There is no longer even the pretence that the US and it's allies are the "good guys" (it was a shallow cover to start with..), now it's just the naked execution of power with an attached "what you going to do about it" to the rest of the world. It would be war crimes if we where at sodding war.

jws 13y ago

Remote targeting has been a part of modern warfare for a century now. Forward observers identify targets, a command procedure is followed, and artillery men fire shells at targets they can not see over distances of hundreds of meters to tens of kilometers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_fire for a typical decision making process. The significant change here isn't that the distance is three orders of magnitude greater, or the required number of projectiles two orders of magnitude fewer. The sensor operator sees what he is doing and the effect. He is not in danger, he is not in a kill or be killed situation, but is called on to kill and observe the results. It is different psychological territory from where most combat soldiers operate.

PeterisP 13y ago
Also, there is a huge psychological difference between a plane pilot dropping a bomb on an 'anonymous' target and observing a hit/explosion, versus the original article drone pilot observing the targets in a non-combat-action situation, dropping the bomb, and then monitoring the aftermath - not only the actual explosion, but the scared/suffering behavior of nearby people. The result of the explosion is the same, but the impact on the soldier is vastly different. In general, a standard healthy homo sapiens isn't really psychologically suited for killing others and handling it well, and thus most of the article is not about the killing but about living with your conscience afterwards.