Hacker News Reader

Comment by batch12 | Hacker News Reader

>For that first part, though, what does that even mean? The military isn't gamifying things and giving folks freaking XBox achievements for racking up killstreaks or anything. It's just the same game people have been playing since putting an atlatl on a spear, a scope on a rifle, or a black powder cannon on a battlefield. How to attack the enemy without being at risk. Is it unethical for a general officer to be sitting in an operations center directing the fight by looking at real-time displays? Is that a "video game?"

It's not the same thing. Not even close. Killing people is horrible enough. Sitting in a trailer, clicking a button and killing someone from behind a screen without any of the risk involved is cowardly and shitty. There is no justification you can provide that will change my mind. Before you disregard my ability to understand the situation, I say this as a combat veteran.

View on HN

  >> For that first part, though, what does that even mean? The military isn't gamifying things and giving folks freaking XBox achievements for racking up killstreaks or anything. It's just the same game people have been playing since putting an atlatl on a spear, a scope on a rifle, or a black powder cannon on a battlefield. How to attack the enemy without being at risk. Is it unethical for a general officer to be sitting in an operations center directing the fight by looking at real-time displays? Is that a "video game?"

  > It's not the same thing. Not even close. Killing people is horrible enough. Sitting in a trailer, clicking a button and killing someone from behind a screen without any of the risk involved is cowardly and shitty. There is no justification you can provide that will change my mind. Before you disregard my ability to understand the situation, I say this as a combat veteran.

Respectfully, whether or not an action is cowardly is not a factor that should ever be considered when making military decisions (or any other serious decision). With that being said, my uncle was a military drone pilot in the 80s-90s and he said it's pretty much exactly like a video game, and doing well does give achievements in the form of commendations and promotions.

I'm not sure how this is different to conventional air support or artillery in an asymmetric conflict. A-10 and F-16 pilots weren't seriously worried about being shot down in Afghanistan, but I know plenty of infantrymen who have nothing but gratitude for the pilot who got them out of a tight spot. Do those pilots become more moral if your enemy has decent anti-air capability?

As a veteran, I respect your experience, but as a former aviator with flight time over Afghanistan I also resent the implication that an asymmetric physical threat is "cowardly." We play the roles we are given. Choose your rate, choose your fate. I, and drone crews, were ultimately there to keep other Americans on the ground alive, and we deserve better than contempt for fulfilling this role. A coward would not have stepped up, sworn the oath, and worn the uniform.

Also, "there is no justification you can provide that will change my mind" is not exactly something to brag about.

Sorry, I don't agree. Also, not bragging, just stating a fact.

>Also, "there is no justification you can provide that will change my mind" is not exactly something to brag about.

I've noticed a certain type of person tends to feel very threatened and attacked by the idea of someone else having an unwavering code of ethics that they firmly believe in

Unwavering beliefs is how you get atrocities.

Looking at history, asymmetry of force is just as responsible.

> clicking a button and killing someone from behind a screen without any of the risk involved is cowardly and shitty

It's actually strategic, and if you're fighting a peer adversary, they will be doing the same.

That's true and also doesn't conflict with my quoted comment.

"Sitting in a trailer, clicking a button and killing someone from behind a screen without any of the risk involved is cowardly and shitty."

Do you think that drone operators never die in combat? There is plenty of deaths among drone operators in Ukraine. It is a pretty risky activity.

Trailer (or a trench) isn't a particularly good shelter against a Lancet or an Iskander, if the adversary can detect you, or multiple of 'you'.

The Russians would likely be willing to expend an Iskander on certain Mr. Madyar [0], if they could locate him.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Brovdi

Would you say the same about a drone operator in ukraine, attacking russian troops on ukraine territory? I feel like there is still a distinction here. Between "traditional" warfare and those "anti-terror" operations.

FPV and scout drone operators in Ukraine are very much at personal risk, they operate within several km of the front line. This is in range of mortars, artillery, snipers, autocannon, tanks, etc.

I'm talking about long range UAV drone strikes. Short range consumer-grade drones strikes aren't something I have experience with. To me, the idea feels similar to the that of IEDs, mortars, claymore mines, etc which also suck, but not the same thing. Landmines are up there though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com