Hacker News Reader

Comment by _bohm | Hacker News Reader

> whereas a unit equipped with only explosive Hellfires would be forbidden from making strikes in, say, a very crowded city thoroughfare, the same environment might be open season for a team with the R9X.

Leads me to wonder what kind of psychological damage we will (and already do) inflict upon populations with targets in their midst. Can you imagine living in a scenario in which your community is regularly bombarded by explosives falling from the sky, let loose by a supposed enemy which you will probably never even see? Horrible.

View on HN

Extensive Stanford/NYU study on the severe psychological consequences of 'Living Under Drones': https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/...

I'm no US apologist and thankfully I've never been in such situations but civilians at risk of these might well be living in situations where they have some very nasty, oppressive people mixed in with them and being an even greater risk to them than such (supposedly) carefully used weapons.

In such cases they might feel grateful that the US is doing this. Might. Maybe. 'Terrorists' is such a useful word.

That's not the point.

The point is, someone you don't know precisely about, neither their real motivations, neither its actual consistency, has the actual ability to kill anyone (more or less precisely) from a distance, as it decides, without fearing any other obstacle than its own will.

Like, an imperfect yet powerful god.

You don't know how to "please it" or "have mercy", but by very proxy methods that may not even apply consistently on the long term.

And then this entity strikes a loved one who you know was innocent. It is suddenly much easier to pick sides out of a deep conviction...

An enemy that isn't showing its face and explaining itself well will likely create more adversity.

Frankly it may not be the point, or it may be exactly the point. I don't know as I've never lived in those situations, and I doubt you have.

I'm raising a possibility, not claiming a truth. You're denying that possibility apparently based on gut feel.

Both my point and yours are ultimately worth exactly nothing. What would be good is to have people there tell us how they feel. We need to hear their voices. They deserve to be heard but for some reason I don't recall ever hearing their opinion.

(Edit: jdietrich posted those opinions - reading now, thanks)

(Edit2: I'll leave this post rather than delete it, but consider it retracted; there's plenty in jdietrich's links to make me change my mind)

I mean, it's not the point, not to sound picky, because, the point is not to know whether the action is justified or not, people are better off or not.

It's because people under this rule have no power, no influence, almost no clue about it, because of the imbalance and the disconnect (of power, of knowledge, of capacity).

Such as would any creature under a powerful god, would gods exist. But you at least expect gods to have some sort of perfection or status or narrative that could somehow justify their whereabouts.

But here, there's no god. Just imperfect, broken humans breaking other humans, imperfectly, often for the wrong, or no reason at all.

That will never make something right. That will certainly entice more hate and more evil.

That's why this kind of weapon should be banned by treaties as unconventional (which they are).

This is not war. This is ruthless domination, for better or for worse (more than often, worse).

> the point is not to know whether the action is justified or not, people are better off or not

Really? You don't think that whether people are better off matters?

Or fundamentally, whether a thing is justified or not matters?

Now I'm curious as to the basis of your morality. Could you explain how you would judge a thing to be right or not? (this sounds rather attacking, I'm not, just really interested).

I expect I've got wires crossed but I'd like to uncross them.

It does matter. Tremendously.

But the means to it matter as much, because they bring their own sets of consequences with them (and that is more than often ignored or overlooked, for "short term benefits").

The justification of an action is as much in the fruits, as in the roots. Both come hand in hand ultimately.

(edit to add the following:)

Then, as to judge/discern, I can't say I have a definite, certain receipt. I fear and keep away from those who say they do have one.

I don't mean to advertise the "basis of my morality". I'm not that good. I have a set of principles, that come mostly from my (Catholic, practicing) upbringing (but that don't match at all what most "Christians in the US" showcase, if that can give an idea) + an inner desire for peace, balance and truth (as hard and harsh it could be) that many take for naiveté, + an acute critical look for bullshit, I guess. But that's not very telling, is it? :p

It's not terribly difficult to ask people in drone-affected areas how they feel about drone strikes. The universal answer is "constant fear, and a deep hatred towards whichever bastards are pressing the button".

https://www.channel4.com/news/drone-attacks-traumatising-a-g...

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/ev...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-afghanistan-mcchrysta...

This happened during WWII with the bombing of entire cities. The idea was the terror would make the enemy surrender. It had the opposite effect.

I'm sure they will be much happier to have rocks regularly dropped on them instead /s.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com