[whb07]

I’d like to offer the point of view that if the drones become better and more surgical in their precision, it would reduce civilian casualties.

Like it or not the world is full of extremists who would like nothing more than to hurt innocent people. There is no “oh just send the cops and arrest them!” route to take.

Shit, just look at the time Osama bin Laden could have been bombed with a tomahawk missile during Clinton’s presidency. He didn’t do it because of the potential to kill a Saudi prince he was meeting at that time.

Would those angry Googlers be against surgically killing Osama? I think not.

Better drone software might help track a potential target and present with the optimal window in which a target could be shot and have reduced civilian casualties. It could also present with better intel to let a surgical ground strike which would put more American soldiers at risk but would allow for better intel and again less civilian deaths.

Lastly, it could offer new knowledge and experience in tracking humans with drones during humanitarian disasters. It could also help in tracking victims of kidnapping, are the Googlers opposed to rescuing the hundreds and thousands kidnapped by Boko Haram and company?

Who is going to go into the African heart of darkness to rescue those people? Is it the arm chair Googlers who pretend to know better?

[dragonwriter]

> I’d like to offer the point of view that if the drones become better and more surgical in their precision, it would reduce civilian casualties.

It would reduce collateral casualties per target attacked, which would make the drones easier to use with looser target selection criteria, which might both increase number of targets attacked and increase the number and ratio of incorrect-target-selection casualties.

The law of unintended consequences is most likely to sneak up and bite you when you only bother to consider first-order effects.

[BookmarkSaver]

Ok... but even accounting for civilian casualties due to increased use of drones, civilian victims (and overall casualties) of US military operations has done nothing but drop as technology improves.

This is just throwing in an unfounded qualitative thought, not an actual empirical argument against precision weapons.

[VikingCoder]

> civilian victims (and overall casualties) of US military operations has done nothing but drop as technology improves

If you can definitively tell me how many civilian casualties there were in the Iraq war, we could discuss whether this were true.

"Credible estimates of Iraq War casualties range from 150,000 to 460,000. Other disputed estimates, such as the 2006 Lancet study, and the 2007 Opinion Research Business survey, put the numbers as high as 650,000 and 1.2 million respectively, while body counts, which likely underestimate mortality put the numbers as low as 110,000." [1]

Having a range from 150,000 to 1.2 million makes it kind of hard to discuss, don't you think?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

[jeffreyrogers]

I agree with you partly, and I think often people who are critical of all military actions are not considering the importance of a strong military in deterring large scale conflict.

But I think it's also true that carrying out military operations (even precise ones) in unstable parts of the world helps violent extremists gain support among the broader population and does nothing to help alleviate the instability that gives rise to these extremists in the first place.

When I consider how few deaths there actually are from extremist groups operating in Western countries it makes me wonder if the scale of our response is really appropriate to the severity of the issue, and whether our actions aren't helping to perpetuate the very issues they're intended to address.

[whb07]

I agree with you as well. I truly believe that the military is for the "defense" of the U.S. Sometimes though a good defense can be a good offense. But by and large I think the 17 years spent in the middle east has been wasteful and largely unproductive. Having said that, there is a number of girls for example who are able to study past elementary school who would have never had the chance to. So maybe not all is wasted?

I think we should have gone down there after 9/11 and punished (killed) everyone that remotely as affiliated to the terrorists and left as soon as we did that. But that is a political action not a military one. Our military budget would be far smaller if all the random bases across the globe would be closed down and we brought the troops back home. If anyone wants to mess with the sleeping giant, then they can quickly pull up records on what happened to Japan and the Axis back in the 1940s.

The article here is talking about developing military applications for better drones. The potential gains to be had from this are more than just better strike capabilities. Those who don't see the potential humanitarian and other activities that might benefit are being short sighted.

[jeffreyrogers]

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. I think what you're saying is pretty reasonable, and I definitely agree about some of the benefits of drones. I'm not sure how effective killing terrorists actually is given that our ostensible ally in the region, Saudi Arabia, appears to tacitly support a lot of the Islamic fundamentalism that gives rise to these extremists. I think a big issue that no one knows how to address is how to combat a religious ideology that does not admit the possibility of making any compromises.

[whb07]

Heh, is it hard to believe why I’ve gotten downvotes on this response? Lol. Anyhow, I’m not thinking of any particular religion or group of people in this case.

I think it’s all fuckery warped self interest from within the government as well. One can grow fat and happy with the billions that flow through defense.

But again, I believe that better tooling will have unforeseen positive and negative consequences. But I think it’s going to weigh more in the positives.

[VikingCoder]

Can you guarantee the technology won't fall into enemy hands?

Can you guarantee our government won't initiate illegal aggression?

Won't subvert democracies?

Won't have another Gulf of Tonkin?

Won't target the families of terrorists, as our current President has suggested?

No, you can't guarantee those things.

Guns don't kill people, people do. And people are sometimes evil, and sometimes break the law, and sometimes make mistakes. And sometimes the gun is stolen. So maybe some engineers don't want their company to make any guns.

You don't get to ask, "Would those angry Googlers be against the technology always being used the way they intended?"

Instead you have to ask, "Is it possible for this technology to be used in ways those Googlers would object to?" And of course the answer is yes.

Many on the Manhattan project thought that bombing Nagasaki was completely unnecessary. Some probably thought Hiroshima was unnecessary, that a demonstration of the power would be sufficient.

[nyolfen]

can you guarantee that this technology won’t be independently developed by a hostile foreign power?

barring catastrophy, it’s close to 100% inevitable that militaries will become largely autonomized in the coming decades.

[VikingCoder]

If I were given the choice, I would support a country that has a track record that I am proud of.

Since I have serious reservations about the track record of the United States, I have to wonder if the people I consider the worst are more likely to establish dominance faster than some other country that I like better.

Maybe I should be working to establish the dominance of the country I think is some combination of the best, and the most likely to win that race (if I and my peers were to help them.)

Or, I could acknowledge that the United States is the most likely to establish dominance, and I should be working my ass off to ensure the US will be the best version of itself that it could be.

[sametmax]

But again this assume the people giving order to the drone are the good guys.

But I never seen any good guys in my history books or in the news.

Hence I always assume, when given a power to somebody, that the person doesn't have my best interest in mind.

Let's all remember it's possible any of our country become one day a dictatorship. Just because we enjoyed a lot of freedom for the last decades doesn't exempt us from still working like we can loose it at any moment. Because we definitly can.

More pragmatically, with powerful AI, giant communications nets, huge database of everything and everybody, cameras with facial detection and wire typing everywhere, do you really want to add drones to the collections of what the power that be can do ?

[whb07]

If you can foresee what potential benefits each technological application has, then maybe i agree with you. There are plenty of examples where military applications and research has led to a bonanza of side applications which improve the human condition.

Look at the MRI imaging. They are a downstream invention that came from the development of nuclear weapons (nuclear magnetic resonance). How many lives do you think that has saved and improved in the past 70 years?

[sametmax]

We could have gotten nuclear tech without the will to kill people. There are smart scientists outside of the military, and a need for power plants. Which everybody agree would have been built with safer tech without the need for the bomb.

Now the problem is never the tech, as usual. It's that the society we are living is not constructed in a way that can prevent the tech from being abused.

We are talking about a country that attacked Irak while lying out the WMD and against the vote of the majority of the world, killing countless people for no proven result and living a country still in ruin decades after that.

I'm not really trusting with the governments we have.

[walshemj]

Well for a counter argument what about the guys who ordered norsk hydro (Heavy Water Plant) air raids and commando raids?

The resistance team sank a ship with 18 civilian casualties also the previous unsucsessfull air raids killed more than that.

[refurb]

But I never seen any good guys in my history books or in the news.

You wouldn't characterize the Allies in WW2 as good guys? No better or worse than Germany or Japan?

[mc32]

The problem is people believe in a fair world and that our foes operate with the same values so that if we accommodate them we’ll be okay and therefore we should not develop means to better wage assymetrical warfare because that’s an unfair advantage. Moreover, what if they are in the right and we are in the wrong, in terms of history.

They fear that this current admin and future adminis may depend on as sec Clinton put it “droning” people we simply disagree with rather than actual military adversaries.

The main question is effectiveness of the system, given some baselines.

[VikingCoder]

Another problem is that some people don't introspect whether our allies should be fighting the people they are fighting.

Other people don't ask if the ends justify the means.

Other people recommend first-strike nuclear attacks.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-legal-case-for-striking-nor...

[sametmax]

I used to think people should read more history. But now I think people should read more sf, and consider it as a potentiality.

[wyldfire]

> Like it or not the world is full of extremists who would like nothing more than to hurt innocent people.

"Full of"? The world is more peaceful than it's ever been. Extremists do hurt innocent people, and we should not ignore them. But with each choice that we need to make, we should carefully consider pros and cons. Is there really a net benefit here?

[whb07]

Do you read of the sectarian violence that happens in Iraq because Saddam fell? How about increase violence in Mexico after cartel leaders are sent to prison/killed?

I agree with you the world is much safer and there is less deaths from military conflict post WWII. I think that is largely due to the massive military power in a largely benevolent country like the U.S. I think if you magically removed the U.S entirely from the picture other nations would be thrown into conflict to be "top dog".

[carapace]

I am a doom-and-gloom type myself but, uh:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur...

> Pinker presents a large amount of data (and statistical analysis thereof) that, he argues, demonstrate that violence has been in decline over millennia and that the present is probably the most peaceful time in the history of the human species. The decline in violence, he argues, is enormous in magnitude, visible on both long and short time scales, and found in many domains, including military conflict, homicide, genocide, torture, criminal justice, and treatment of children, homosexuals, animals and racial and ethnic minorities. He stresses that "The decline, to be sure, has not been smooth; it has not brought violence down to zero; and it is not guaranteed to continue."

[ondrae]

> Would those angry Googlers be against surgically killing Osama?

They most likely don't want to work for a company involved in any killing.

[ythn]

Every company is involved in killing. Every industry supports the military in some way. Name an industry that the military does not utilize the technology of.

[craftyguy]

There's a big difference between tangentially supporting the military because your widget (e.g. toothbrushes) is used by them and many others, and making a full on weapon system for them, and only them.

[carapace]

> Would those angry Googlers be against surgically killing Osama?

Probably.

I can't find the quote, but I was reading something about the troubles with the IRA, and the response, that really stuck with me. The author said something like, "When you use lethal force against terrorists it lets them feel that it's fair to use it against you."

We won't defeat violence by violence.

I think we need to challenge ourselves to become less bloodthirsty as we become more technologically capable. (If only to set a good example for our progeny... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_No_Mouth,_and_I_Must_Sc...)

Once you make the mental flip it becomes really easy to think up defense systems that work without causing any casualties or deaths at all, not our guys, nor civilians, nor the enemy. And if we just can't live with that, we can always kill them later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Execution

[refurb]

We won't defeat violence by violence.

I can think of a few examples that prove that statement false. WW2?

[carapace]

Reminds me of the great battle at Kurukshetra. Arjuna fought because he was a warrior, he won because he chose God.

[martin_bech]

thats terrible reasoning, most likely formed by the skewed view that targeted assasinations are needed and cool. Why does the US need to be at war all the fucking time.. there are so many problems with drones doing targetted killings, and so many many more, if they should be powered by AI that get cucumber right 98% of the time. This is such a horrible, horrible, horrible idea.

[Clubber]

>Shit, just look at the time Osama bin Laden could have been bombed with a tomahawk missile during Clinton’s presidency. He didn’t do it because of the potential to kill a Saudi prince he was meeting at that time.

Here's an article on that very thing. It didn't mention anything about a Saudi Prince though.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-bill-clinto...

But your points are valid. Like anything, it could be used for non-objectional purposes. How morally objectionable do you think the whole of the use of this technology would be, given the country using it, etc? Do you think it would help the US and allies become more or less authoritarian? How long until you think it would be given / sold to local police departments like other military equipment?

[whb07]

There were many missed opportunities. But I'm mainly pointing that one out as an example of what could be done with better tech[0].

As far as your other points, I think they are all valid. In this country we still have the press to bring up rampant abuses, and other branches of the government to keep the executive in check. I suppose as long as the other branches are willing to keep each other in check, then its better for everyone to include US citizens.

You also have to remember that the people in the military aren't robots (not yet at least). They are regular citizens joining a volunteer army for a multitude of reasons, many of which are to serve honorably and of course the steady paycheck and college benefits. Most of the military does a 4 year stint and they go back to being civilians like you and I.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/...

[Clubber]

It was also a staggeringly different time (pre-9/11). I don't remember being as militaristic as we are today. I mean people talked hawkish, but it seemed much less likely to actually happen.

>You also have to remember that the people in the military aren't robots (not yet at least).

I'm not sure what the point is on this comment is, so excuse me if I missed it, but I would think the fact that we have real citizens in the military would be a barrier to atrocities. Putting a drone hive/squadron in the hands of just a few people seems like atrocity would be more likely to happen.

[mtgx]

And the internet has allowed for much more "targeted surveillance" too, from across the world.

Guess how it's been used? It's been used to "target" everyone. Why? Because it's gotten cheap and easy enough to use on many more people at once - just how automated drone strikes will be soon.

I think you're naive if you think this will "improve" war conditions. Here's one story that may bring you back to reality, and about how these automated drone strikes are more likely to be used in the future:

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180501-journalists-chall...

Do you think this guy was a victim of "inaccurate" drone attacks and "collateral damage"?

[scythe]

The problem with dangerous technologies isn't when they're used under the best possible circumstances. It's all of the others. Nuclear bombs can propel spaceships or dig canals, but nobody is protesting that.

[vidarh]

> Like it or not the world is full of extremists who would like nothing more than to hurt innocent people.

And some of them are parts of governments.

[imbokodo]

> the world is full of extremists > Osama bin Laden could have been bombed

What you seem to be saying, in what we hear all the time, is spending money and doing work that increased the power and capabilities of the US military will makes us all better off.

You are also seem to be saying that Osama bin Laden is an extremist.

But in the 1970s, as Afghanistan was working towards becoming a more secular society, the US military and intelligence agencies were arming Osama bin Laden and his fellow jihadis, the proto Taliban and proto Al Qaeda. Who wanted, among other things, for the secularization of Afghanistan to stop, and for an Islamic dominated government to come in. An effort which the US succeeded in, along with their partner Osama bin Laden.

This being the case, I am not exactly sure when bin Laden and people like him became extremists. I suppose it was after the US began it's military occupation of Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden opposed the US military occupation of his country.

This may sound equivocal about bin Laden, but the US is more equivocal about bin Laden. I think he never should have been armed by the US. People of a like mind said as much then. Others disagreed.

In other words, if the US is making political errors (or is not making errors and is pursuing negative goals), more power and capability to carry out those erroneous policies will not help matters.

For example, Trump just escalated the conflict in the Middle East this week, which only satisfies religious fundamentalists. Handing him more power to do so will not help things, it will just mean more 9/11s in response to the blow he just landed against Arabs/Muslims.

[pera]

> I’d like to offer the point of view that if the drones become better and more surgical in their precision, it would reduce civilian casualties.

I am not sure why some people instantly assumes that the whole purpose of making drones more autonomous is to make them more precise: historically, the DoD/US military have made virtually zero efforts to even try to reduce civilian "casualties".

Maybe I am too cynical, but I genuinely think that the military is only willing to invest in technology that would help them expand current and future operations, disregarding the impact that these will have in the civilian population of foreign territories... probably because it's orders of magnitude cheaper to just pay someone to write a public statement denying every statistics published by neutral NGOs around the world.

[whb07]

This is outright false. I'd love to see what history you are getting your facts from. I can personally tell you I've seen the briefs and classes the military personnel are put through, and they are clearly told to minimize civilian casualties even to the harm of U.S personnel.

They are also told by a lawyer during those briefs essentially "if you break any of the Geneva conventions or outright any of the things we just told you we will swiftly punish you".

[BookmarkSaver]

>I am not sure why some people instantly assumes that the whole purpose of making drones more autonomous is to make them more precise: historically, the DoD/US military have made virtually zero efforts to even try to reduce civilian "casualties".

????

That's not even close to true. On any level. You are confusing the inevitable willingness to tolerate civilian casualties with an outright disregard. Civilian casualties have consequences, and they are avoided. Not strictly, but it is a cynical fantasy to imagine that there is a complete disregard for civilians.