25 ms·

Drones are just like any other tools of war. The fact that the combatant is sitting very far away from the battle doesn't make the killing any less real, the st

by hooande 13y ago

Drones are just like any other tools of war. The fact that the combatant is sitting very far away from the battle doesn't make the killing any less real, the stakes any lower or the human cost to the operator any cheaper. War is hell because of the horrible decisions that have to be made. Distance doesn't make it any easier. Drones don't kill innocent non-combatants, people do. There are many cases of civilians being killed by artillery shells or friendly fire by naval guns. I'm sure there was even an errant trebuchet or two. Long distance warfare is ok as long as there are people like Byrant on the other end of the weapon, people who worry and struggle with the moral consequences of what they have done. I feel for him and what he's had to go through, but at the same time I'm glad that drone warfare hasn't become the video game that people thought it would be. Some of the commenters on this thread sound like the people who would throw things at veterans returning from vietnam. Have we learned nothing? The blame for the cost of war doesn't go to to the weapons or the people who pull the triggers. We're all responsible for the things done in our names, and responsible for changing them if we don't like the outcome.

jackpirate 13y ago
The blame for the cost of war doesn't go to to ... the people who pull the triggers. Yes, it most certainly does. I used to be a submarine officer in the Navy, but I was discharged 2 years ago as a conscientious objector [1]. I left because I felt I had a moral responsibility to do so. If your conscience says "don't kill someone," then you shouldn't kill them. You can't absolve yourself of responsibility just because the president ordered the killing. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/nyregion/23objector.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/nyregion/23objector.html?p...
- grey-area 13y ago
  Perhaps a better statement would be - The blame for the cost of war doesn't go entirely to the people who pull the triggers? Surely those who order the killing, those who pay for it, and those who permit it by voting for the war, bear some of the responsibility?
  - gbags 13y ago
    That would be a sane statement. But what the OP said, and what you "wholeheartedly agreed" with was absolute and complete rubbish.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    Sure. They're all responsible. Hooande set up a strawman describing an imaginary situation where grunts are held responsible for the cost of war, which is of course allocated by the mucky-mucks on high (and well far away from the front lines, natch). However, taking the whole of his post and the one you're replying to, I believe it's an incontrovertible fact that there are citizens in a warmaking country who are not responsible: the ones who didn't want to go to war.
- phaus 13y ago
  You must be exceptionally lucky. In most cases they will ruin your life before they give you conscientious objector status.
  - phaus 13y ago
    Just to elaborate on this, conscientious objector status won't always disqualify one from military service. In past scenarios where people were drafted, conscientious objectors were often given non-combat related jobs. On today's battlefield, a non-combat job doesn't mean much, because there isn't really "enemy" or "friendly" territory.
    - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
      Yeah. Like SS Totenkopf and the Jews. The enemy might be anywhere and there is no friendly territory.
      - phaus 13y ago
        The war on terror isn't unique because it was the first war that involved an insurgency/guerrilla forces, because it wasn't. What I'm saying is that during this conflict, pretty much the entire thing has been unconventional warfare.
        LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
        Yep. Exactly like SS Totenkopf. Nothing conventional there too.
        phaus 13y ago
        You're pretty much ignoring what I said. You are talking about a conflict that represents one of the unconventional parts of the largest conventional war ever. In contrast to this, the entire war on terror is an unconventional war fought against guerillas and insurgents.
- ams6110 13y ago
  Why did you join the Navy in the first place? Or did you come to realize your moral conflict only after you were already in?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - jackpirate 13y ago
    After 5 years in the navy I applied for CO discharge. I was quite pro-military when I joined. It was what I wanted to be my whole life growing up.
    - mml 13y ago
      The military exists on the backs of the young. [Edit: I was once young too, I don't hold it against anyone. Nothing more heartbreaking than a 19y/o with the 1000 yard stare (which I've personally witnessed.)]
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  Would you help me understand something? The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is what keeps countries from launching nukes at each other. In order to have that doctrine in place, we need people in the military who are willing to launch nukes, and that military needs to be firmly under the control of the civilian government. In that context, was your objection to fire any nuke a personal decision, i.e. you personally wouldn't be comfortable with ending so many lives (who would?) or was it a wider objection, i.e. you feel it's immoral for any military personnel to be willing to launch nukes? If it's the former, then I totally understand. But if it's the latter, would you help me understand how to reconcile that belief with the necessity of mutually assured destruction? They seem to be at odds.
  - grey-area 13y ago
    It is quite possible to believe in the necessity to have a military without believing in the doctrine of mutually assured destruction or the use of nuclear weapons.
  - jackpirate 13y ago
    I personally believe that Jesus calls us to "love our enemies" and that this means not killing them for any reason whatsoever. My personal objection to war goes far beyond the whole nuke thing to even self defense.
    - xmonkee 13y ago
      I fully agree with Jesus on this one, but sometimes I wonder what I would do in a situation where this belief was really challenged. I hope I don't have to find out.
      - jackpirate 13y ago
        My view is that how we act in these "crisis scenarios" isn't super important. It's how we act in the everyday situations that matters. So I ask myself, "What am I doing right now to reduce war?" or "What am I doing right now to help the homeless living in my city?" This is how I measure whether or not I'm following Jesus.
- dm2 13y ago
  Why couldn't you just change to a role that didn't involve directly killing someone? What kind of job could you do after having a background in "press the button when it's time to nuke someone"?
  - jackpirate 13y ago
    I don't see a moral difference between being the person pulling the trigger and being the person who supplies the person pulling the trigger. Everyone in the military is there because they make the organization more effective at war. I couldn't be a part of that. I'm a CS grad student right now. I'm not eligible for federal funding so I teach for money.
    - ars_technician 13y ago
      If supporting is just as bad in your view, where do you draw the line. Did it ever occur to you that your teaching could be enabling people to program weapons for the military?
      - jackpirate 13y ago
        I draw the line at "loving my enemy." For example, some of my students are in ROTC. I do my best to teach them even though they are my "enemies" on this particular issue. The line is definitely pretty fuzzy though.
alan_cx 13y ago
"Drones are just like any other tools of war. " No they are not. The are risk free and relatively cheap, meaning its easier to order their use. The easier war is, the easier it is to make war. "The fact that the combatant is sitting very far away from the battle doesn't make the killing any less real" Oh yes it does. There have been plenty of studies that clearly demonstrate this. It is always easier to press a button that look a man in the eyes and shoot him. Lastly. How do you surrender to a robot? Had Bin Laden and his men held up their hands and put down their weapons, they all may well be in US jails right now. Had that been a drone strike, that would not have even been a possibility.
- wdewind 13y ago
  They are similar risk to airforce units (ie: little/no risk to pilot). They are similar cost to airforce units (about 2/3 the cost of an F-15, which is certainly significant but not completely game changing). They perform similar actions to airforce units. I am always surprised that people draw such a big line between the pilot being in the cockpit and out of it. It's also totally possible Bin Laden did hold up his hands. None of the points you are making really have anything to do with drones.
  - e12e 13y ago
    There was a report earlier about stress and drone pilots, that spurred some coverage, like: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-08/psychological-toll-drone-warfare http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-08/psychologic... partial quote: "The dazzling clarity of the drone's optics does have a downside. As a B-1 pilot, Dan wouldn't learn details about the effects of his weapons until a post-mission briefing. But flying a drone, he sees the carnage close-up, in real time—the blood and severed body parts, the arrival of emergency responders, the anguish of friends and family. Often he's been watching the people he kills for a long time before pulling the trigger. Drone pilots become familiar with their victims. They see them in the ordinary rhythms of their lives—with their wives and friends, with their children. War by remote control turns out to be intimate and disturbing. Pilots are sometimes shaken." In other words: similar:yes, same:no.
grey-area 13y ago
We're all responsible for the things done in our names, and responsible for changing them if we don't like the outcome. I agree wholeheartedly. It's good for people in the west to read stories like this from the front lines and realise the moral ambiguities and atrocities which are inevitable in wartime. If you don't like this, do something about it, and vote against any politician who proposes to continue it, because in many cases our taxes are paying for it. The UK and Germany also host drone bases used in this expanding war. I don't agree that drones are just like any other tools of war though. There are a few important differences from say cruise missiles or artillery - they are capable of stand-off surveillance for hours before and after strikes. They don't require warships or other platforms in the theatre of war, just an air base which could be several countries away and controllers who can be a world away. Also, importantly, many of them are tasked on missions directly controlled by the President or CIA (not this operator though). I think that has changed the way this administration looks at war and made Obama a very direct military leader. Prior to drones, it was far harder for President Obama to order a strike in say Pakistan or Yemen, based on what his intelligence handlers tell him is a terrorist, and be sure of hitting targets moving on the ground so precisely, with visual footage before and after. Because they give a feeling of omnipotence over low-tech adversaries, even if the footage is blurry and the intelligence scarily incomplete, it will be tempting to use them more and more for surveilling and attacking as one operation, in any country in the world, without really having permission or a war ongoing. It will also be tempting to use them on civilian targets like houses or groups of people in ordinary life. That's a distinct change from previous engagements which if they killed civilians were far less targeted. Drones, and this administration's use of them, have blurred the boundaries between war and peace, and of war itself, until it seems the world is viewed as a battlefield, and the war is an eternal one against enemies who look like civilians. There hasn't even been a formal declaration of war, and pre-crime assassination has been adopted as a tool of war. That is a huge change in how we view war, partly brought about by drones and partly by the nature of the enemy the US is trying to face down in this asymmetric war.
gbags 13y ago
> The blame for the cost of war doesn't go to to the weapons or the people who pull the triggers. We're all responsible for the things done in our names, This is absolute and complete horseshit. I protest against war. I vote against war. I campaign for candidates who oppose war. I refuse to work for companies that profit from war. War happens anyway. A soldier surveys his opportunities and realizes he can put money in his pocket from war. He votes for war. He makes fun of protesters. He fights the war. He freely spends lives and money. Only a completely insane person would claim that the soldier and I are equally culpable. We just aren't. It's repulsive that you'd make such an ignorant and asinine assertion. I'd ask for your reasoning, but it's clear that you excluded your reasoning because there IS no valid, logical, sane underpinning to your argument. And the comparison with Vietnam is absolutely fucking disgusting. Vietnam was a draft. Modern wars aren't fought by draftees, they're fought by low-talent assholes who think that shooting brown people sounds better than flipping burgers. p.s. the vietnam vet spitting thing is an urban legend.
- grey-area 13y ago
  You got a downvote from me for this post - personal attacks are not helpful, and speculation about someone being human filth is really not called for, unless you don't believe in having an army at all? Even if you don't I think you should tone down your hatred. You've also distorted the OP in your rush to condemn them. For example: We're all responsible for the things done in our names, Only a completely insane person would claim that the soldier and I are equally culpable. The first statement does not imply the second. We are all, to a greater or lesser degree, responsible for the actions of our government, and for the wars it prosecutes. You may feel powerless in your opposition to war, but if you feel outraged by that, spare some thought for those half a world away who have had their grandmother or other members of their family killed by a drone. [EDIT - I see you've removed the reference to human filth now]
  - gbags 13y ago
    The blame for the cost of war doesn't go to to the weapons or the people who pull the triggers. OP explicitly exempts people who voluntarily agree to fight wars for profit from blame for the wars. That is insane. If you want to down vote me because I can't pretend to respect that sort of bullshit, that's fine; I hope it made you feel powerful to click a button and tell me off.
rhizome 13y ago
The fact that the combatant is sitting very far away from the battle doesn't make the killing any less real It doesn't make it any less real, but it does make it more cowardly. Some of the commenters on this thread sound like the people who would throw things at veterans returning from vietnam. Have we learned nothing? Yes we have learned something: it didn't happen.
- e12e 13y ago
  > It doesn't make it any less real, but it does make it more cowardly. I strongly object to the last few wars both Europe and the US has been involved in, to our foreign policy and to a lot of the policies that surround these conflicts. I still think a comment about "cowardly" tactics and strategies are unwarranted. Bravery is indeed a virtue, but in deadly conflict there isn't really such a thing as "fighting cowardly". There's cautious, callous, heinous, smart and stupid -- but not really cowardly. It's a little like a front page story a few years back in Norway, when some Norwegian troops stationed in Afghanistan were interviewed, and called the insurgents IED-tactics "cowardly". Said with a straight face by someone that had the latest equipment, aerial and satellite surveillance, areal and modern artillery support, sniper support, body armour, armoured vehicles, night vision and all other trappings of modern warfare -- fighting poorly equipped peasants that are subject to night raids where parts of entire families are boxed up and shipped across half the world never to be heard from again. Now, I'm not saying that it wouldn't feel cowardly when one of these peasants injured or killed someone with a sneakily placed IED -- but it's just good tactics, it isn't really cowardly. I mean, there wouldn't be any more wars in these areas if the local people tried to fight "fair" whatever that is supposed to mean.
belorn 13y ago
Im not sure how responsible the US citizens are, when they are being intentionally misinformed about the war. > asking if a child had just run directly into the path of their shot. “And he says, ‘Per the review, it’s a dog.’ ” Its disgusting how casualties are being counted. Rather than own it up, and admit that both civilians and kids die in a war, they redefine children as dogs, and count all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.
- zurn 13y ago
  Citizens are responsible the same way parents are responsible for their childrens shenanigans, and company management is responsible for acts done by the company.
agumonkey 13y ago
I found the delocalization of killing a pretty big difference. I think most of war is justified by the fact that you're risking your life on site, a distorded 'kill or get killed' excusing the its absurdity, the emotional rush of surviving makes the act acceptable for some time. On the other hand, sitting comfy at home and triggering death is a pretty dissonant concept that makes people rethink being at war. Often veterans run away from war, with time they concluded about its nonsense, here people experience this right away.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  War isn't justified by the fact that you're risking your life on site. At its core, war starts with a society or their leaders deciding that yes, they want a goal X achieved even it will require dying and killing of innocent people, and that X is more important than their lives. If the decision is made, then it doesn't really matter how the killing is executed - the main moral issue is the choice of starting a war.
njharman 13y ago
Drones are different than many tools of war. They allow one society to wage war on another with no direct risk of life. This makes war a much more palatable, desirable even, solution to whatever perceived problem they have. And the primary incentive to end war "our sons being killed" is gone. Drones aren't only weapon like this, they aren't unique, but it's untrue to claim they are nothing different. They are an evolution of bombers and the effects on and reactions of pilots is strikingly similar to some carpet bomber crews of WWII and Vietnam Police action.
enko 13y ago
> the human cost to the operator Forgive me for putting the "human cost to the operator" a very distant second in my reckoning about this issue, ie dropping bombs on people, wiping out whole generations. This is killing people, do you understand? Dropping bombs and killing people. You know, I want it to be difficult. > Drones don't kill innocent non-combatants, people do Well it is exactly like guns, isn't it. Guns don't kill people, people do, but guns sure make it a hell of a lot easier. There is no nation on earth that looks at America's gun culture and thinks "that is a good idea!". Same with military drones.

by hooande 13y ago

jackpirate 13y ago

The blame for the cost of war doesn't go to to ... the people who pull the triggers. Yes, it most certainly does. I used to be a submarine officer in the Navy, but I was discharged 2 years ago as a conscientious objector [1]. I left because I felt I had a moral responsibility to do so. If your conscience says "don't kill someone," then you shouldn't kill them. You can't absolve yourself of responsibility just because the president ordered the killing. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/nyregion/23objector.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/nyregion/23objector.html?p...

grey-area 13y ago
Perhaps a better statement would be - The blame for the cost of war doesn't go entirely to the people who pull the triggers? Surely those who order the killing, those who pay for it, and those who permit it by voting for the war, bear some of the responsibility?
- gbags 13y ago
  That would be a sane statement. But what the OP said, and what you "wholeheartedly agreed" with was absolute and complete rubbish.
- rhizome 13y ago
  Sure. They're all responsible. Hooande set up a strawman describing an imaginary situation where grunts are held responsible for the cost of war, which is of course allocated by the mucky-mucks on high (and well far away from the front lines, natch). However, taking the whole of his post and the one you're replying to, I believe it's an incontrovertible fact that there are citizens in a warmaking country who are not responsible: the ones who didn't want to go to war.
phaus 13y ago
You must be exceptionally lucky. In most cases they will ruin your life before they give you conscientious objector status.
- phaus 13y ago
  Just to elaborate on this, conscientious objector status won't always disqualify one from military service. In past scenarios where people were drafted, conscientious objectors were often given non-combat related jobs. On today's battlefield, a non-combat job doesn't mean much, because there isn't really "enemy" or "friendly" territory.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    Yeah. Like SS Totenkopf and the Jews. The enemy might be anywhere and there is no friendly territory.
    - phaus 13y ago
      The war on terror isn't unique because it was the first war that involved an insurgency/guerrilla forces, because it wasn't. What I'm saying is that during this conflict, pretty much the entire thing has been unconventional warfare.
      - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
        Yep. Exactly like SS Totenkopf. Nothing conventional there too.
        phaus 13y ago
        You're pretty much ignoring what I said. You are talking about a conflict that represents one of the unconventional parts of the largest conventional war ever. In contrast to this, the entire war on terror is an unconventional war fought against guerillas and insurgents.
ams6110 13y ago
Why did you join the Navy in the first place? Or did you come to realize your moral conflict only after you were already in?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jackpirate 13y ago
  After 5 years in the navy I applied for CO discharge. I was quite pro-military when I joined. It was what I wanted to be my whole life growing up.
  - mml 13y ago
    The military exists on the backs of the young. [Edit: I was once young too, I don't hold it against anyone. Nothing more heartbreaking than a 19y/o with the 1000 yard stare (which I've personally witnessed.)]
sillysaurus2 13y ago
Would you help me understand something? The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is what keeps countries from launching nukes at each other. In order to have that doctrine in place, we need people in the military who are willing to launch nukes, and that military needs to be firmly under the control of the civilian government. In that context, was your objection to fire any nuke a personal decision, i.e. you personally wouldn't be comfortable with ending so many lives (who would?) or was it a wider objection, i.e. you feel it's immoral for any military personnel to be willing to launch nukes? If it's the former, then I totally understand. But if it's the latter, would you help me understand how to reconcile that belief with the necessity of mutually assured destruction? They seem to be at odds.
- grey-area 13y ago
  It is quite possible to believe in the necessity to have a military without believing in the doctrine of mutually assured destruction or the use of nuclear weapons.
- jackpirate 13y ago
  I personally believe that Jesus calls us to "love our enemies" and that this means not killing them for any reason whatsoever. My personal objection to war goes far beyond the whole nuke thing to even self defense.
  - xmonkee 13y ago
    I fully agree with Jesus on this one, but sometimes I wonder what I would do in a situation where this belief was really challenged. I hope I don't have to find out.
    - jackpirate 13y ago
      My view is that how we act in these "crisis scenarios" isn't super important. It's how we act in the everyday situations that matters. So I ask myself, "What am I doing right now to reduce war?" or "What am I doing right now to help the homeless living in my city?" This is how I measure whether or not I'm following Jesus.
dm2 13y ago
Why couldn't you just change to a role that didn't involve directly killing someone? What kind of job could you do after having a background in "press the button when it's time to nuke someone"?
- jackpirate 13y ago
  I don't see a moral difference between being the person pulling the trigger and being the person who supplies the person pulling the trigger. Everyone in the military is there because they make the organization more effective at war. I couldn't be a part of that. I'm a CS grad student right now. I'm not eligible for federal funding so I teach for money.
  - ars_technician 13y ago
    If supporting is just as bad in your view, where do you draw the line. Did it ever occur to you that your teaching could be enabling people to program weapons for the military?
    - jackpirate 13y ago
      I draw the line at "loving my enemy." For example, some of my students are in ROTC. I do my best to teach them even though they are my "enemies" on this particular issue. The line is definitely pretty fuzzy though.

alan_cx 13y ago

"Drones are just like any other tools of war. " No they are not. The are risk free and relatively cheap, meaning its easier to order their use. The easier war is, the easier it is to make war. "The fact that the combatant is sitting very far away from the battle doesn't make the killing any less real" Oh yes it does. There have been plenty of studies that clearly demonstrate this. It is always easier to press a button that look a man in the eyes and shoot him. Lastly. How do you surrender to a robot? Had Bin Laden and his men held up their hands and put down their weapons, they all may well be in US jails right now. Had that been a drone strike, that would not have even been a possibility.

wdewind 13y ago
They are similar risk to airforce units (ie: little/no risk to pilot). They are similar cost to airforce units (about 2/3 the cost of an F-15, which is certainly significant but not completely game changing). They perform similar actions to airforce units. I am always surprised that people draw such a big line between the pilot being in the cockpit and out of it. It's also totally possible Bin Laden did hold up his hands. None of the points you are making really have anything to do with drones.
- e12e 13y ago
  There was a report earlier about stress and drone pilots, that spurred some coverage, like: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-08/psychological-toll-drone-warfare http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-08/psychologic... partial quote: "The dazzling clarity of the drone's optics does have a downside. As a B-1 pilot, Dan wouldn't learn details about the effects of his weapons until a post-mission briefing. But flying a drone, he sees the carnage close-up, in real time—the blood and severed body parts, the arrival of emergency responders, the anguish of friends and family. Often he's been watching the people he kills for a long time before pulling the trigger. Drone pilots become familiar with their victims. They see them in the ordinary rhythms of their lives—with their wives and friends, with their children. War by remote control turns out to be intimate and disturbing. Pilots are sometimes shaken." In other words: similar:yes, same:no.

grey-area 13y ago

We're all responsible for the things done in our names, and responsible for changing them if we don't like the outcome. I agree wholeheartedly. It's good for people in the west to read stories like this from the front lines and realise the moral ambiguities and atrocities which are inevitable in wartime. If you don't like this, do something about it, and vote against any politician who proposes to continue it, because in many cases our taxes are paying for it. The UK and Germany also host drone bases used in this expanding war. I don't agree that drones are just like any other tools of war though. There are a few important differences from say cruise missiles or artillery - they are capable of stand-off surveillance for hours before and after strikes. They don't require warships or other platforms in the theatre of war, just an air base which could be several countries away and controllers who can be a world away. Also, importantly, many of them are tasked on missions directly controlled by the President or CIA (not this operator though). I think that has changed the way this administration looks at war and made Obama a very direct military leader. Prior to drones, it was far harder for President Obama to order a strike in say Pakistan or Yemen, based on what his intelligence handlers tell him is a terrorist, and be sure of hitting targets moving on the ground so precisely, with visual footage before and after. Because they give a feeling of omnipotence over low-tech adversaries, even if the footage is blurry and the intelligence scarily incomplete, it will be tempting to use them more and more for surveilling and attacking as one operation, in any country in the world, without really having permission or a war ongoing. It will also be tempting to use them on civilian targets like houses or groups of people in ordinary life. That's a distinct change from previous engagements which if they killed civilians were far less targeted. Drones, and this administration's use of them, have blurred the boundaries between war and peace, and of war itself, until it seems the world is viewed as a battlefield, and the war is an eternal one against enemies who look like civilians. There hasn't even been a formal declaration of war, and pre-crime assassination has been adopted as a tool of war. That is a huge change in how we view war, partly brought about by drones and partly by the nature of the enemy the US is trying to face down in this asymmetric war.

gbags 13y ago

> The blame for the cost of war doesn't go to to the weapons or the people who pull the triggers. We're all responsible for the things done in our names, This is absolute and complete horseshit. I protest against war. I vote against war. I campaign for candidates who oppose war. I refuse to work for companies that profit from war. War happens anyway. A soldier surveys his opportunities and realizes he can put money in his pocket from war. He votes for war. He makes fun of protesters. He fights the war. He freely spends lives and money. Only a completely insane person would claim that the soldier and I are equally culpable. We just aren't. It's repulsive that you'd make such an ignorant and asinine assertion. I'd ask for your reasoning, but it's clear that you excluded your reasoning because there IS no valid, logical, sane underpinning to your argument. And the comparison with Vietnam is absolutely fucking disgusting. Vietnam was a draft. Modern wars aren't fought by draftees, they're fought by low-talent assholes who think that shooting brown people sounds better than flipping burgers. p.s. the vietnam vet spitting thing is an urban legend.

grey-area 13y ago
You got a downvote from me for this post - personal attacks are not helpful, and speculation about someone being human filth is really not called for, unless you don't believe in having an army at all? Even if you don't I think you should tone down your hatred. You've also distorted the OP in your rush to condemn them. For example: We're all responsible for the things done in our names, Only a completely insane person would claim that the soldier and I are equally culpable. The first statement does not imply the second. We are all, to a greater or lesser degree, responsible for the actions of our government, and for the wars it prosecutes. You may feel powerless in your opposition to war, but if you feel outraged by that, spare some thought for those half a world away who have had their grandmother or other members of their family killed by a drone. [EDIT - I see you've removed the reference to human filth now]
- gbags 13y ago
  The blame for the cost of war doesn't go to to the weapons or the people who pull the triggers. OP explicitly exempts people who voluntarily agree to fight wars for profit from blame for the wars. That is insane. If you want to down vote me because I can't pretend to respect that sort of bullshit, that's fine; I hope it made you feel powerful to click a button and tell me off.

rhizome 13y ago

The fact that the combatant is sitting very far away from the battle doesn't make the killing any less real It doesn't make it any less real, but it does make it more cowardly. Some of the commenters on this thread sound like the people who would throw things at veterans returning from vietnam. Have we learned nothing? Yes we have learned something: it didn't happen.

e12e 13y ago
> It doesn't make it any less real, but it does make it more cowardly. I strongly object to the last few wars both Europe and the US has been involved in, to our foreign policy and to a lot of the policies that surround these conflicts. I still think a comment about "cowardly" tactics and strategies are unwarranted. Bravery is indeed a virtue, but in deadly conflict there isn't really such a thing as "fighting cowardly". There's cautious, callous, heinous, smart and stupid -- but not really cowardly. It's a little like a front page story a few years back in Norway, when some Norwegian troops stationed in Afghanistan were interviewed, and called the insurgents IED-tactics "cowardly". Said with a straight face by someone that had the latest equipment, aerial and satellite surveillance, areal and modern artillery support, sniper support, body armour, armoured vehicles, night vision and all other trappings of modern warfare -- fighting poorly equipped peasants that are subject to night raids where parts of entire families are boxed up and shipped across half the world never to be heard from again. Now, I'm not saying that it wouldn't feel cowardly when one of these peasants injured or killed someone with a sneakily placed IED -- but it's just good tactics, it isn't really cowardly. I mean, there wouldn't be any more wars in these areas if the local people tried to fight "fair" whatever that is supposed to mean.

belorn 13y ago

Im not sure how responsible the US citizens are, when they are being intentionally misinformed about the war. > asking if a child had just run directly into the path of their shot. “And he says, ‘Per the review, it’s a dog.’ ” Its disgusting how casualties are being counted. Rather than own it up, and admit that both civilians and kids die in a war, they redefine children as dogs, and count all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.

zurn 13y ago
Citizens are responsible the same way parents are responsible for their childrens shenanigans, and company management is responsible for acts done by the company.

agumonkey 13y ago

I found the delocalization of killing a pretty big difference. I think most of war is justified by the fact that you're risking your life on site, a distorded 'kill or get killed' excusing the its absurdity, the emotional rush of surviving makes the act acceptable for some time. On the other hand, sitting comfy at home and triggering death is a pretty dissonant concept that makes people rethink being at war. Often veterans run away from war, with time they concluded about its nonsense, here people experience this right away.

PeterisP 13y ago
War isn't justified by the fact that you're risking your life on site. At its core, war starts with a society or their leaders deciding that yes, they want a goal X achieved even it will require dying and killing of innocent people, and that X is more important than their lives. If the decision is made, then it doesn't really matter how the killing is executed - the main moral issue is the choice of starting a war.

njharman 13y ago

Drones are different than many tools of war. They allow one society to wage war on another with no direct risk of life. This makes war a much more palatable, desirable even, solution to whatever perceived problem they have. And the primary incentive to end war "our sons being killed" is gone. Drones aren't only weapon like this, they aren't unique, but it's untrue to claim they are nothing different. They are an evolution of bombers and the effects on and reactions of pilots is strikingly similar to some carpet bomber crews of WWII and Vietnam Police action.

enko 13y ago

> the human cost to the operator Forgive me for putting the "human cost to the operator" a very distant second in my reckoning about this issue, ie dropping bombs on people, wiping out whole generations. This is killing people, do you understand? Dropping bombs and killing people. You know, I want it to be difficult. > Drones don't kill innocent non-combatants, people do Well it is exactly like guns, isn't it. Guns don't kill people, people do, but guns sure make it a hell of a lot easier. There is no nation on earth that looks at America's gun culture and thinks "that is a good idea!". Same with military drones.