3 ms·

> Shut down all armed drones. Review the entire use of them from top to bottom. This isn't a video game, there is no do-over. To be clear, this isn't a "drone"

> Shut down all armed drones. Review the entire use of them from top to bottom. This isn't a video game, there is no do-over. To be clear, this isn't a "drone" problem per so, so much as an "airpower" one. There have been plenty of incidents where the use of manned aircraft have resulted in similar (probably) inadvertent civilian casualties -- e.g. the AH-64 attack depicted in the "Collateral Murder" video or the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia, not to mention all of the incidents during the Vietnam War and WW2. There has historically been a trade-off between risk to military personnel and civilian casualties. Ironically, the best way of reducing that trade off probably involves more robots, albeit ones that gives the military options other than "shoot" and "let potential militant get away".

downer89 13y ago
Consider the idea that reducing risk to military personnel actually provokes a steep increase in the propensity to indiscriminately wipe out civilians, simply because the fear of any consequence has been mitigated. So as you approach zero risk, the occurence of applied lethal force accelerates on a curve toward an asymptote.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Is that theory supported by any evidence? My guess is that under Obama and drones, fewer civilians have been accidentally killed then under say Clinton and cruise missiles.
  - downer89 13y ago
    This isn't a theory specific to the premise of drones. It's a natural human tendency. It's why school-yard bullies exist. In the absence of an principled, ethical personality, the discovery of impunity, combined with any obvious benefit obtained by way of abuse precipitates unrestrained abuse. A greedy person that can get away with something will act in favor of obtaining an object of desire.
kubiiii 13y ago
Reducing the military risk to zero while the civilian risk persists (even if it may be lower) does not appear to be fair from the (surviving) civilian POV. I am not saying that US should have its kids been killed in battlefield, but should pay the proper price for accidentally killing civilians. That means $, excuses, explanations, not total blackout on the topic.

downer89 13y ago

Consider the idea that reducing risk to military personnel actually provokes a steep increase in the propensity to indiscriminately wipe out civilians, simply because the fear of any consequence has been mitigated. So as you approach zero risk, the occurence of applied lethal force accelerates on a curve toward an asymptote.

rayiner 13y ago
Is that theory supported by any evidence? My guess is that under Obama and drones, fewer civilians have been accidentally killed then under say Clinton and cruise missiles.
- downer89 13y ago
  This isn't a theory specific to the premise of drones. It's a natural human tendency. It's why school-yard bullies exist. In the absence of an principled, ethical personality, the discovery of impunity, combined with any obvious benefit obtained by way of abuse precipitates unrestrained abuse. A greedy person that can get away with something will act in favor of obtaining an object of desire.

kubiiii 13y ago

Reducing the military risk to zero while the civilian risk persists (even if it may be lower) does not appear to be fair from the (surviving) civilian POV. I am not saying that US should have its kids been killed in battlefield, but should pay the proper price for accidentally killing civilians. That means $, excuses, explanations, not total blackout on the topic.