Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by riggins | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

riggins

Considering Bryant is one of the only operators speaking out, his conscience seems to bother him more than the average.

Here's a comparison (an IAMA thread from reddit).

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1ghkm7/iama_drone_sens...

Q: Have you ever had to strike a target that you were not comfortable with?

sensor_operator: No, I trust our JTACs 1000000% they really know their stuff.

While this was the top voted comment, I found it very dark. To me, what the operator was implicitly saying was that he'd target whoever his superiors told him too.

I don't get outraged. More than being outraged I think this shows a fundamental truth about humans which is that they'll kill without losing too much sleep. I'd put myself in the 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone' camp.

View on HN

It seems that you are interpreting that comment in an odd way to suit your agenda. If he "trusts" his "JTAC" then that implies that he believes something about the targets he is being given, not that he is willing to hit any target. The most obvious interpretation of the statement is that he has some notion of a legitimate target, and he believes that the JTACs share this notion and he trusts both their intention and ability to select only these targets.

EDIT: Holy fuck, there is even an edit that clarifies his actual meaning, and shows I am correct (I don't know when this edit was made, I am assuming it was made before your comment). Here is the clarification he added:

"Not really, this notion that we go out and pick our own targets is the most invalid statement ever. And by JTACs controlling us, we are an extension of their capability. They are the ones with boots on the ground, the know the ground situation WAY better than anyone thousands of miles away and they are ultimately responsible for Friendly forces lives and the lives of the civilians [my emphasis]. When they give us a target and clearance the burden is always on them unless something goes wrong and we miss. Then it becomes our fault. But JTACs really do know their stuff and if I didn't trust them then I wouldn't be here today."

Keep in mind that the JTAC is usually an enlisted soldier embedded with a ground unit. He is highly trained on ROE and positive ID, and generally has a good first hand perspective on what is happening on the ground. He is responsible for protecting the lives of the unit he is embedded with, and air assets are tasked to support him. From my experience, these are not warmongers, just guys doing their jobs, trying to protect lives.

I understand that. And this isn't about me trashing the operator.

But I also have a logical mind and I can't avoid the implication that if his JTAC was a bad apple, he'd do what the JTAC said.

Aircrews have their own ROE and approval process for engagements. They aren't simply trigger pullers for the JTAC. However, there is an implicit trust in the JTAC, and desire to protect the ground unit. If ROE is satisfied and approvals are in place, the aircrew is generally not going to second guess the guys getting shot at.

I don't want to get into an argument and you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but the military is a pretty old profession and has dealt with this problem before.

JTACs are basically radio/telephone operators, and often aren't physically with the unit calling in the fires because there are more platoons than there are JTACs, so the JTAC sits at the company (or sometimes up to the brigade) HQ and handles a whole bunch of platoons at once. He takes what the ground commander says (via radio in the field), and passes that to a control center via telephone, IRC (seriously), satcom, etc. The control center then routes a plane overhead and facilitates direct contact between the pilot and JTAC (not the ground commander). The real specialty of the JTAC is speaking in both Air Force-isms and Army-isms and communicating clearly with both parties. Imagine a weird game of telephone where adding another person in the chain actually makes the message come out more clearly at the end.

So to wrap up a long story, there's a whole lot of communication being passed around and it would be awfully difficult for a JTAC to just decide "I'm going to get that family over there killed because I feel like it"

People with doubts about the process are going to tend to self select out of it. If they are sitting there with ambivalence about each release, at some point they aren't going to want to face it again.

Worship war much? Fact is, these drones allow your government to commit heinous crimes against humanity with impunity.

If these JTAC's are so great, why the 50 to 1 civilian to 'bad guy' kill ratio?

It's worth pointing out that the 50-1 civilian to "bad guy" ratio comes from Pakistani intelligence, and no other sources have it that high. The figures are also only about Pakistan, where as far as I know we have no (or significantly fewer) JTACs. You're also talking about significantly different missions, whereas in one drones are supporting ground units and in another they are the primary unit.

I don't trust American figures about drone strikes, but I certainly don't trust Pakistani intelligence either.

Americas' own Brookings Institutes' conservative estimate is 10 to 1. That is still heinous.

I agree 10 to 1 is heinous, but it's far from unheard of in warfare w/o drones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio

No buts. Anyone who justifies any expenditure into technology-of-death over technology-of-life, is simply worshipping death. America would be far less violent if its people had to deal with its delivery on a more personal basis than the current technological means provide..

I have to be honest: I don't think you actually read the article. Here's another one to read too: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-08/psychologic...

Drone pilots are dealing with the delivery on a more personal basis than much of the rest of the military, even arguably infantry soldiers.

I absolutely do not worship death, and that's a pretty inflammatory thing to say. I also think your grouping of "technology of life" vs. "technology of death" is far to simple. For one thing we are currently communicating over a medium originally designed to monitor nuclear silos.

Pointing out the JTAC's role and its lack of connection to war mongering politicians is not worshiping war.

> I think this shows a fundamental truth about humans which is that they'll kill without losing too much sleep.

I don't think you can deduce that from the AMA. It could just as well be a PR campaign and wouldn't necessarily represent what an actual drone operator really believes.

my belief isn't based on just the AMA. Its just another example of the dynamic.

my observation is there's no shortage of willing participants for officially sanctioned, military actions where the participants believe there will be no consequences.

And I'm not saying that as a value judgement. I'm saying that as an observation about human nature.

That really shouldn't outrage you just about drones. Anyone doing indirect fire, from the Taliban way outside the perimeter fence with mortar, to artillery guys in WWI, to pilots dropping bombs, is trusting the guy who picked the targets.

Hell, the guys who fletched arrows and cast musket balls were trusting they will be used justly and have always done so (or didn't care). Drone warfare really doesn't change that at all.

Fighting irregular forces does. It's far harder to be sure someone is an enemy.

The real problem in a mindset such as that is the situation when the ground and the operator both think that each other are doing due-diligence as to which targets to hit.

Remember this? http://worldblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2009/04/17/4376383-taliba...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com