Comment by themgt | Hacker News Reader

Comment by themgt | Hacker News Reader

“China and Russia are developing battle networks that are as good as our own. They can see as far as ours can see; they can throw guided munitions as far as we can,” said Robert O. Work, the deputy defense secretary, who has been a driving force for the development of autonomous weapons. “What we want to do is just make sure that we would be able to win as quickly as we have been able to do in the past.” ... The weapons, in the Pentagon’s vision, would be less like the Terminator and more like the comic-book superhero Iron Man

Such blatant propaganda by the NYT. Just like with Stuxnet, the US is pouring black budget dollars into novel asymmetric offensive weapons that'll be rapidly put to use in the field, all under the guise of "defense". It's grossly irresponsible.

In the position of sole superpower barely hanging onto our role with the obvious rise of a multipolar world, the USA should be pulling all its strings to put in place international institutions and laws that will uphold stability and the type of global civilization we've become used to. Instead we're throwing money that should be rebuilding infrastructure and paying for people's health care into crazy destabilizing weapons systems where we'll have a 5 year "strategic advantage" headstart on the tech but the precedents we set (a cyberweapon that infected computers worldwide, Terminator autonomous weapons?) will come back to haunt us and the rest of the world.

America's manned drone programs are an outright war-crime. This video from 2012 is telling:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ46ZkJY8oo

..and sadly nothing has changed. Obama has continued to authorize the use of drones to kill countless people we know little to nothing about, without any type of oversight. Make no mistake; no matter who wins the coming election, this will continue and escalate. It will not make the world safer.

Wasn't China our allay? I'm pretty sure they make all of our stuff .. including many of the electronic components that make their way into drones.

The Russian rhetoric hasn't changed at all since the Cold War when Regan's Team B was making up all kinds of technologies the Russians didn't actually have in order to continue defence spending (see the documentary: The Power of Nightmares).

The type of propaganda we see obfuscates the reality of western foreign policy. US supported rebels in Syria decapitated a kid who looks to be about 12 ~ 13 years old. The BBC cropped the photo to remove the kid and then claimed they killed a dangerous young combatant. (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzEsDAoUvOI)

View every attempt to justify more war and more bombings critically. They will not make the world safer.

The focus on drone programs is misguided. Drones are the best way to conduct a war and minimize casualties, of both US soldiers and foreign civilians. Traditional air strikes, artillary, ground assaults, or airborn assaults would result in much more death and destruction.

I expect you really just believe the US shouldn't be fighting the Taliban in the tribal area of Pakistan. But since we are, drones are the best way to do it.

Just look at what Russian intervention in Syria looks like. Or Saudi intervention in Yemen looks like. Drones are much less destructive.

I'm not sure how you can argue drones minimize foreign civilian casualties, given the constant reports of drones bombing weddings and social gatherings based on the location of a cell phone. That's basically just repeating direct propaganda.

But that isn't because they're drones. People have a visceral, irrational reaction to drones because they feel autonomous and impersonal. But ultimately there is a human pressing the button to fire those missiles.

It's really no different from a fighter jet dropping the bombs, there's just no risk of casualties on our side. Yes, those casualties are bad, and we should be agitating against them, but it isn't the drones that are the problem.

Except that we seem far more willing to commit drones, rather than manned craft.

So, you're arguing that we should have to risk lives because we'd be less willing to commit them?

That seems like a profoundly misguided argument.

Is it? In [0] (from 2015) the number of US citizens who had been to Iraq and/or Afghanistan was around 2.5 million, or about 0.75% of the population at the time of writing.

Why do we continue to send these men and women over there? Because no one knows them. The risk to someone the average US citizen knows is near 0. This lack of connection allows people to make the decision to commit these anonymous soldiers to a war on the other side of the world.

This is only exacerbated by drone warfare. Now, we'll be committing even fewer of our own citizens lives to the risk of war. Materiel is easily replaced in comparison, and the losses are more easily covered over.

One of the reasons that we, finally and way too late, pulled out of Vietnam was the draft. The idea that you, or your brother, or your son, or your cousin could be drafted and thrown into a war that none of you wanted.

Now it's an all-volunteer military. While we may be wary of war, it's far less of an emotional and ethical strain on the people of this country when they go into their voting booths.

[0] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-trag...

I don't disagree that this is an interesting and troubling trend to keep an eye on. The lowered cost of war absolutely has all the effects you describe, and that is, in a global sense, absolutely a scary thing, with disconcerting implications.

However, it is philosophically untenable to take the position that we should be forced to risk a life in order to take one. That is an anachronism that only feels justified out of a misplaced sense of moral fairness. What we should be doing is focussing on better procedures to prevent civilian casualties. Drones actually represent a great opportunity to employ very stringent procedures to prevent such things. Much more so than a fighter jet or troops on the ground. You can easily do things like have multiple people sign off before a missile is launched, employ machine learning to enhance images and attempt to classify and predict common sources of operator error, etc..

Do you operate, build, or design drones for a living?

Nope.

If I get you correctly another re-phrasing could be: If we put a human soldier into a situation that is dicey, like a mix of civilians and terrorists we didn't expect, we are obligated to get that human out even if it risks more soldiers and local civilians. But if we put a drone in the same dicey situation we can just accept the loss of that drone and self destruct it without harming any soldiers or civilians.

I was irked that you were downvoted, hopefully my upvote bring you out of the gray.

===

You make solid points, I don't disagree with you entirely. I do want to clarify: my point of view is not based on a sense of moral fairness. War is probably always going to be unfair, otherwise it's an even match and even more pointless. If I were for fairness I'd want the war to be local and not just in other countries, but I don't want that.

What I want is for it to end. The ability to cover up the human costs by distance from the front, distance from the people fighting (on either side), means it's too easy for us to allow it to continue. I don't want US men and women in harm's way. I want them out of harm's way, and for us to stop killing people who (mostly) just want to live their lives. Some level of military action will probably be necessary somewhere in the world, as entangled as we are, at any given time. But going to more automated and unmanned systems allows us to continue to be far more violent than circumstances actually require, with little cost to the elected and appointed officials directing this violence in our name.

Thanks for the upvote.

I basically agree entirely with you. However, I think almost everyone would. If you asked Obama or any of the generals running these drone ops to sign off on what you just said, I think they'd gladly do so. They'd then likely go on to say that the war they're waging is one of these unfortunate necessities. Further, that the civilian casualties horrify them, but they're doing what they can do stop them while still accomplishing the (in their minds) paramount goal of eliminating terrorist threats.

What it seems to me to come down to ultimately is that it's ok to use drones when you come down on the right side of that moral calculation and not when you don't. Which, of course makes the drones an irrelevant part of the equation in the first place, since that is the fundamental moral question of all use of force.

Maybe the answer is to un-depersonalize the nature of drone strikes. Maybe their video feeds should be publicly available after X amount of time when they've used their weapons?

It is, but it's also not what I said. I'm saying, in relation to the comment chain, that drones do lead to more foreign casualties because of how we're willing to use them, i.e. casually.

Do you have an argument that doesn't involve rephrasing mine?

It is equivalent to what you said. If you are criticizing the way that we use drones, that's fine and you have no argument from me. Criticizing the use of them at all because of their lower cost is silly.

What you're missing (or "missing") is that how we use drones, and drones themselves are inextricably linked.

Can you elaborate? Inextricably is a pretty strong word.

Edit: I'm not implying a position. With a strong assertion I'm interested in how one arrives there.

Creation of a new type of weapon cannot be separated ethically or conceptually from the ways the weapon will be used. The design of a weapon influences the manner of its use, and that is unavoidable. The same is true of all objects -- design influences behavior. This link is inextricable.

No they aren't. Certain paths may get easier, but it's just up to us to choose the right ones. There is nothing about drone use that entails the killing of civilians, any more than any other form of killing. The fact that it makes it less personal, as i've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, can be an advantage and a disadvantage.

If you care about a goal that actually matters, like reducing violence, you'll push for better verification procedures when a target is going to be struck. Not a reduction in drone use in general, and not an attack on the concept of drones.

Drones present a unique opportunity thus far in war to have stringent procedures in place that control the pulling of the trigger. They represent an opportunity to dramatically reduce civilian death, and increase responsibility for those that abuse their status as drone operators to murder civilians. On a battlefield, it's almost impossible to evaluate killings ex-post. Not so for a drone operator. They are perfectly safe, every single input available to them will be available to any tribunal who wishes to review their actions. They do not have the excuse of feeling threatened, or the heat of battle, or anything like that.

Drones are going to be a good thing for civilian casualties, IF and only if we guide them in the right direction. And that isn't going to happen if we keep naively complaining about their use in blanket terms.

So, you're arguing that we should have to risk lives because we'd be less willing to commit them?

I say this as someone with many family members who have served: absolutely yes. War must have a steep cost or we will be far too eager to wage it.

So, should we take away their body armor too?

This is a straw man and a deflection.

No it's not. It is precisely equivalent to the argument you're making. If you think there is some moral imperative to impose costs on war, then it is incumbent upon you to draw the line. Why body armor but no drones? Both of them are cost reduction mechanisms. Why is one ok and the other not?

No it's not. It is precisely equivalent to the argument you're making.

No it's not. I would go into more detail but I don't feel you are arguing in good faith, so my effort would be wasted. It seems more like you are trying to out-post your opposition with silly false equivalences that waste time and sidetrack the discussion about drones.

But for anyone else reading, I will say that a distinction can be drawn empirically. Body armor doesn't seem to change the types of situations in which an attack would be considered, while drones do.

> No it's not. I would go into more detail but I don't feel you are arguing in good faith, so my effort would be wasted. > It seems more like you are trying to out-post your opposition with silly false equivalences that waste time and sidetrack the discussion about drones.

I'm not arguing in bad faith, you just aren't bothering to think through your point. As your very next sentence illustrates.

> But for anyone else reading, I will say that a distinction can be drawn empirically. Body armor doesn't seem to change the types of situations in which an attack would be considered, while drones do.

That is pretty obviously false if you spend two seconds considering it. And even if you were to take that as true, what about tanks? Planes? Those unequivocally change the considerable situations.

People are already complaining about the introduction of tanks in new settings like local police forces. Also, when you send a bunch of kids into a putative warzone and they powerslide their tanks around the local streets at 60MPH, it tends to make the locals unhappy. And again, you are shifting goalposts to avoid talking about drones.

> People are already complaining about the introduction of tanks in new settings like local police forces.

That is an irrelevant non-sequitur.

> Also, when you send a bunch of kids into a putative warzone and they powerslide their tanks around the local streets at 60MPH, it tends to make the locals unhappy

Ditto.

> And again, you are shifting goalposts to avoid talking about drones.

I'm not moving the goalposts. The goalposts remain the same. You claimed that weapons that change the operations you consider should not be used. And it is by that criteria that you object to drones. I falsified that criteria a bunch of different ways, and you've failed to respond to any of them adequately.

That is an irrelevant non-sequitur.

You brought it up.

You've been throwing random distractions at a misconstrued, simplified version of what I've said. It's clear that there is zero communication taking place, so I will not respond further.

Is that accurate? The USA has been willing to use regular manned aircraft for bombing in plenty of situations that are more dangerous than Pakistan and Yemen.

There is basically zero chance the taliban can shoot down an F15. Drones are used because they are cheaper and the better tool for the job.

In fact, Drones only work in areas where the opposing forces have virtually no ability to shoot down aircraft. Because drones are sitting ducks. In a shooting war against any country with anti-air capabilities, drones wouldn't stay in the air for long.

It's not constant reports, but it's happened several times. But a land invasion gets many more killed. So do regular aerial bombardment.

What is the better tactic?

>"What is the better tactic?"

Short of a complicated and "nuanced" response, I'd suggest:

How about not invading a sovereign nation? Worst case, the UN could block-off all in-out with that country. Trade, travel, communication. All of it until they abide by UN laws.

No, they're equally destructive as standard air assaults. They've taken the place of manned bombing runs and created an additional layer of abstraction between pilots and the people they kill.

You know the best way to minimize causalities? Stop creating wars. In thirty years from now, I'd put money that declassified papers will show the US and allies explicitly created ISIS. It fits the pattern (1973 US led military coupe in Chile that killed 11,000 civilians, the Iranian Contra Scandal, The School of the Americas, the failed Bay of Pigs, the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq .. the list is as long as you want to make it).

You're right, drones do have less causalities than ground troops for instilling fear and creating needless wars. So let's step back and stop the needless wars.

They have greater time over target which allows greater time to accurately pick a target. Sure, a hellfire is a hellfire, but a hellfire is a small missile. Traditional strike fighters and bombers use larger munitions. You could send in Apaches but they are vulnerable to anti-air attacks.

People always say the layer of abstraction is a problem, but I've never heard a good reason articulated.

Look at the carnage that Russian and Saudi air campaigns are doing in Syria and Yemen. Drone campaigns are much less dangerous.

The military-industrial complex won. It's that simple. We just blew trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and people are basically baying for more.

We're cooked.

Counterpoint: maybe we become the Klingon empire?

I'd say the key to their success was FTL travel and a big galaxy to plunder.

A strong ability to use force is absolutely needed to protect the civil civilization we enjoy. There are enough psychopathic leaders in the world that any wealth area will be taken by force is it's not defended. This is simply the realpolitik of the world. Now, exactly what the shape of that force should be is a fine subject for debate. If you start your argument with "all defense dollars are wasted," though, you don't get to help decide that shape.

Usually it's civil civilization versus civil civilization.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com