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.
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.
* 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.
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...