Hacker News Reader

Comment by wintersFright | Hacker News Reader

This is worth a watch http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_suarez_the_kill_decision_sho...

It's a great, insightful video.

So from a friend that was a major in the USAF flying fixed and rotor wing aircraft: the current UCMJ / ROEs requires an officer present for each and every kill decision. Period. If that doesn't happen, it's get-a-lawyer-and-court-martial time. Probably main US military isn't the biggest threat if the video's fears in the near term, there are too many people watching: it's any force of any country that doesn't respect rules of war.

Very reassuring. Some military guy decides who lives and who dies. The civilian kill rate is likely high (but we can't really judge for sure as the US military doesn't tell us that stuff), are you really sure the US isn't a big threat? Court martial? It's a slap on the wrist for murder. How severely punished were those who conducted war crimes in Iraq? The US might respect most rules of war, but not by any stretch does it respect all of them. Hell, it doesn't even accept a war is occurring in some of the conflicts it is pursuing. How many of the US drones are firing into areas with a declared war? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/22/journalists-web...

edit: For clarity.

I always found funny that war has rules, when people are just trying to kill other people no matter what.

I remember first hearing that there were rules to war as a kid. I literally couldn't believe it.

You can make the argument that there are some very inhumane/barbaric ways to kill people, and as a "civilized" world, we shouldn't engage in them. But, that line of reasoning always takes you back to, "wait, how about we just not kill people at all?"

I'm sure after all armies are automatized somebody will eventually realize both sides can save billions and get same effect by just simulating the whole thing on computer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com