The effort to make war less inhumane dates back centuries
gizmodo.com
gizmodo.com
Obviously there's no question of war being humane, but it isn't interesting to just repeat the universal reflexive objection, which the article itself includes: "The idea that we might be able to make war more humane at all seems oxymoronic; war is, by definition, inhumane."
What we want is discussion that engages with the specific content of this article, not generic dismissals. If it's wrong, great, but say how and where. Long experience with HN has shown that generic dismissals lead to boilerplate threads (edit: which usually then turn angry—perhaps because they're so boring), but specific engagement gets interesting.
As an introduction to the subject of jus in bello this particular article is a fire starter, for example, the thread would be much different if the article introduced Jody Williams[1] being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her work in banning landmines. Wars will still be brutal and gory but it is also good to know that 50 years after present wars are over kids won't be playing in a field somewhere having their legs blown off by unexploded landmines; whereas, 10 years ago there were 15,000-20,000 deaths/year (mostly children) and in 2012 there were 3,000-4,000 (mostly children).
As for automated killing robots, is anyone naive enough to think they will wait until they can "perfectly identify an enemy combatant"?
First off, the definition of enemy combatant is already waaay too vague, to include just about any male in the Middle East.
Second, the gov is making even now, in 2015, plenty of "mistakes" with drone strikes (see the hospital strike, the killing of the mother of the guy who they were supposed to kill, but had switched phones) - and they've been using them for more than a decade.
After all of these facts, there's nothing that can convince me that the robots will only kill the "right people" when they start launching them on the battlefield.
[1] https://theintercept.com/document/2015/10/14/small-footprint...
ANAN: It's a vicious attack, extremely destructive. Fortunately, our defences are firming, but our casualties are high. Very high.
KIRK: Sir, I have been in contact with my ship, which has had this entire planet under surveillance. All during this so-called attack of yours, we have been monitoring you. There's been no attack, no explosions, no radiations, no disturbances whatsoever. If this is some sort of game you're playing...
ANAN: This is no game, Captain. Half a million people have just been killed. Activate the attack units, Sar.
SAR: Yes, Councilman.
ANAN: Launch immediate counter attack.
SPOCK: Computers, Captain. They fight their war with computers. Totally.
ANAN: Yes, of course.
KIRK: Computer don't kill a half million people.
ANAN: Deaths have been registered. Of course they have twenty four hours to report.
KIRK: To report?
ANAN: To our disintegration machines. You must understand, Captain, we have been at war for five hundred years. Under ordinary conditions, no civilisation could withstand that. But we have reached a solution.
SPOCK: Then the attack by Vendikar was theoretical.
ANAN: Oh, no, quite real. An attack is mathematically launched. I lost my wife in the last attack. Our civilisation lives. The people die, but our culture goes on.
KIRK: You mean to tell me your people just walk into a disintegration machine when they're told to?
ANAN: We have a high consciousness of duty, Captain.
SPOCK: There is a certain scientific logic about it.
ANAN: I'm glad you approve.
SPOCK: I do not approve. I understand.
ANAN: Good. Then you will recall I warned you not to come here. You chose to ignore my warning. I'm sorry, but it's happened.
KIRK: What has happened?
ANAN: Once your ship was in orbit about our planet, it became a legitimate target. It has been classified destroyed by a tricobalt satellite explosion. All persons aboard your ship have twenty four hours to report to our disintegration machines. In order to ensure their co-operation, I have ordered you, Captain, and your party held in custody until they surrender. If possible, we shall spare your ship, Captain, but its passengers and crew are already dead.
Another point is regarding the targeting. When a missile strikes, assuming it strikes the intended target and meets the objective, there tend to be other losses as well. It's very disconcerting that it's people (even the objective) doing day to day things during that time. What is worse is that US considers 16-49 year old males as enemy combatants in that case and does not report that as civilian casualties. It's true it would be very hard and when it's at a training camp or the like it's more likely, but it's not always the case.
Finally some of my family lived through WWII and some are still alive. The stories they told before passing and those still here tell are chilling. War is insane and inhumane. Unless you have this sort of account it's nearly impossible to comprehend how callous and capricious the events can be. Take the recent hospital strike. Of course the US military will do all they can to fight hard in the rules of engagement. They will call in airstrikes when ever they can and then you have civilian casualties. To war you have to live with that.
The Strange Tale of the Norden Bombsight https://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlW-JCqGkYo [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh3hknntD10
If you're running a war against a worthy opponent, everyone needs to get behind it if you have a chance at succeeding.
It's also a pretty despicable thing to have to get behind, and not everyone is going to want to on purely moral grounds.
If you can somehow soften the edges, at least in theory, you might be able to convince otherwise inconvincible segments of your own society to at least tacitly support the effort.
It's honestly the worst line of investigation I could think of. Instead of this question, I think the best premise is to ask how we got the point where the image of constantly belligerent western militaries is distorted into a picture of humanity and outright magnanimous consideration for human life?
Really? You don't think investigating whether technological progress has (or hasn't) improved the damages caused by war is worthwhile?
The issue that we somehow can't manage to stop going to war is a distinct one. Just because it would be preferable to not start wars in the first place asking followup questions about the effectiveness of attempts to reduce collateral damage and indiscriminate slaughter when we do seems reasonable to me.
That said, this article does explore developments in precision tech resulting in "less killing" or "more targeted killing".
When will the global community work on growing past the age of war? Perhaps toward an age of military competition without death.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
Yes, now that its not fashionable to report how many of the "enemy" are killed or injured at the end of each day, it doesn't mean that they are not killed.
The sheer colossal waste of life for the last three big wars, is overwhelming. In iraq we(the west) killed the best part of at least 100,000 people. Then with the sheer ineptitude of occupation set the seeds for a bloody civil war that is still raging (ISIS et al is just a direct consequence) claiming god knows how many people through active fighting a week, and a magnitude more because of the breakdown of the fabric of society.
Yes, we have precision bombs. Yes we have drones. but that just means that we, the west don't directly get hurt. Not the "enemy", or the poor fuckers that happen to be in the way.
Do you know why the current calibre for most nato guns is 5.56mm? yes partly because its smaller, partly because there is less kick, but also because its less lethal.
An injured enemy requires more resources to rescue, causes a distraction, and mental anguish.
As described by many, more gifted people, war is hell.
And right now, futile.
This is actually a myth - the .223 was not selected because it's designed to injure instead of kill. The main advantage of the round is that it's light, so soldiers can carry a lot of ammunition on them, but it also has a flat trajectory and is quite lethal within typical combat ranges. You also get the advantage that it's easier to shoot a .223 quickly than a larger caliber - a soldier can put 30 rounds down range with more accuracy, in less time, than they can with a larger caliber.
Source? The reason I've always gotten is that it causes the bullet to "tumble"[0] once it enters the body which causes even greater damage to the body than simply passing through, which results in a greater lethality.
[0] - http://www.futurefirepower.com/myths-about-the-nato-556-cart...
There's enough bullshit in the link you reference that it should be entirely ignored, the twist rate pertains to getting the bullet to spin fast enough to be stabilized in the air, it's not going to significantly affect the stability once it changes media. It's been decreased, bullets are spun faster, because we've adopted a heavier and disproportionately longer round (has a soft steel penetrating capsule), and the particularly long tracer version requires a 1:7 twist rate.
Cavitation, which causes the effect called temporary stretch cavity, is if you believe Dr. Martin Fackler, not a major wounding mechanism, most tissue will snap back without major effects. Permanent crush cavity is what counts.
This is not the general understanding when the round was adopted, it's what Facker found out after a lot of surgery in Vietnam lead to a career in wound ballistics and shooting a lot of blocks of calibrated gelatin etc. to figure out what actually happens.
Now that I think about it I'm not sure what the official story is with expanding bullets, which are not under discussion here, but I can't see how adding drag to the lighter end of the bullet will change this. And of course it'll depend on profile, I'm talking about spitzer rifle bullets, a putative fully jacketed wadcutter, a simple cylinder, wouldn't have any reason to swap ends.
Interestingly professional forces are going back towards full power Battle Rifles for at least some fire team members
You can add layers of abstraction on top of the violence – much like Tesla owners are abstracted away from the pollution that powers their vehicles – but at the end of the day, someone is on the receiving end of a weapon designed to kill, and you can't sugar-coat that.
* drones and missile guidance systems are not infallible * Soldiers join the army against their will * Terrorism is a thing. A big thing. Used by most countries.
You therefore are not actually rebutting the GP's point.
The operation in the Iraq War (2003) was a shit show -- we steamrolled Iraq's entire public infrastructure, funneled untold millions/billions into Islamist and Western militias, and killed/wounded tens of thousands of Americans, Iraqis, or otherwise.
In Yemen and Afghanistan we send drones over with abandon, not taking care to avoid civilians or that we're hitting the right target.
And after all that, hundreds of billions of dollars are thrown away. Not only is collateral damage there but it's here too -- we are wasting money on dubious programs that have no measurable indicator of success and no end in sight.
War is every bit as ugly as it was a century ago.
Let alone what happened on the ground in ww2 read Bevors Stalingrad or Berlin.
IRAQ was a CF but its relatively more humane than ww2
War is every bit as ugly as it was a century ago.
Really cruel things still does happen but it could have been a whole lot worse.
I'm of the opinion that as an unarmed civilian I'd much rather meet an angry, armed soldier than about any other equally angry equally armed person. Then again, my limited training and lack of combat experience might have rendered me a bit naive.
And: IIRC drone operators, at least many of them, aren't soldiers which has been pointed out as a problem even by US military, again IIRC.
As for grey areas, is it more humane to kill 1 to prevent them from killing 10? Or 2? Or 10,000,000? Two things that should not be spoken of categorically are war and humane/inhumane, they are routinely defined by their grey areas.
The dirtiness of the US power grid varies quite a bit depending on where you live. For example, Tesla owners in New York have emissions equivalent to a 112 MPG gasoline vehicle [0]. The dirtiest portion of the grid is Colorado, where you would only get 34 MPG equivalent. While not as good, this is still above average.
http://i.imgur.com/nTBCJ8w.jpg (via Wait But Why)
What metric is that really showing? Here[0] Colorado doesn't top any of the charts.
[0]: http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/
In 2009, RMPA had the highest carbon emissions per megawatt hour out of the entire US, at 1,824.51 lb/MWh [0]. It also emits nitrous oxide at a high rate, though not the highest in the country.
[0] http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-02/documents...
It seems that currently the two things (modern efficient ICE versus EV) are roughly comparable, but which is improving faster and predicted to continue improving in the future?
Many of the proper scientific studies on this use years old grid data since newer info takes a while to collate and get published, so possibly EVs have already pulled ahead.
In general, electric vehicles are better than gas vehicles. However, hybrids may be the most efficient in a region with a relatively dirty electric grid: http://28oa9i1t08037ue3m1l0i861.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-c...