[ucaetano]

> Google was enabling the DoD to be more efficient at killing people

The world is complicated, and things are never as simple as that.

Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing?

It is always too easy to ignore the world as it is and focus on a utopian case. War will happen, with whatever tools are available.

[natalyarostova]

Only the most dogmatic pacifists in the US still maintain that the US entering WWII was the wrong choice. Yet the US literally incinerated hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians through carpet fire-bombings. Thankfully, we seem to have left the world of total war.

Whether nuclear weapons and targeted drone strikes made the world in some broad strokes more peaceful on purpose, well, probably not. Nonetheless, we haven't had carpet bombings anywhere near the scale of WWII in decades.

[crwalker]

> Thankfully, we seem to have left the world of total war.

Deaths in armed conflict form a fat-tailed distribution. Extreme events dominate, and the absence of any world wars for several decades is not evidence that humanity has gotten more peaceful if world wars happen roughly every couple hundred years. See Taleb, who is much more clear. http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/violencenobelsymposium.pdf

[robax]

Yuval Noah Harari has a different argument in his book Sapiens. He says that we’re living in the most peaceful period of human existence ever and it’s caused by a few factors. #1 the stakes are too high because of nuclear weapons and #2 now more than ever a country’s resources are the brains of its inhabitants, which can’t exactly be conquered.

I think we’re definitely seeing the landscape of war changing. I really hope traditional bloody war is obsolete.

[dragonwriter]

#2 seems obviously wrong; minds can be conquered (that's what propaganda is about), if you conquer minds you don't need to fire a shot to conquer, and—except perhaps for a handful of the most totalitarian regimes as targets—its never been easier for a hostile power to deliver propaganda to the citizenry of a target state, especially if the target is a developed democracy.

So, yeah, the importance of minds as resource might be part of the reason for the absence of major armed conflict, but for almost the exact opposite of the reason Hariri suggests.

[chr1]

Hararis argument is that when the main resource of the country is brains, conquering that country with army wouldn't give you anything useful, and you need other methods to conquer like the propaganda you ention.

And because the propaganda tends to kill less than bombs, the conflicts do not end up as wars.

[crwalker]

Both views could be correct: Taleb's point is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I haven't read Sapiens, and I hope Harari is correct, but I'm not tracking the second argument. Certain governments believe they can conquer minds, as evidenced by detention/propaganda camps and universal surveillance/scoring. If a government with this perspective successfully invaded another country, wouldn't they institute a similar program there and expect similar results?

[ntsplnkv2]

> If a government with this perspective successfully invaded another country, wouldn't they institute a similar program there and expect similar results?

No country of consequence can be invaded like this today - nuclear weapons upped the stakes considerably.

[dragonwriter]

> No country of consequence can be invaded like this today - nuclear weapons upped the stakes considerably.

No nuclear power can be, nor can any country closely allied with a nuclear power, but not every country of consequence is in one of those categories.

Unless you define “of consequence” specifically to mean in those two categories, and so exclude, e.g., Ukraine.

[rak00n]

It's interesting you mentioned Harari because he mentioned Google when describing #2.

[natalyarostova]

I'm familiar with Taleb's argument on this point, and it's a fair point. A massive nuclear war in 70 years would change any current conclusions that nuclear weapons make us safer.

On the other hand, I'd personally rather take a 1% chance of obscene nuclear war and otherwise peace, than a (let's say) 40% chance of ongoing infantry warfare.

[dta5003]

Hey, I'm not even that dogmatic of a pacifist and I'd go further. Entering the first WW and the preceding entangled alliances was the wrong choice (as warned against by our founders). The resolution of WWI set the stage for inevitable problems including WWII.

[u02sgb]

Not sure that's "going further". They're two separate choices (despite being related).

[ameister14]

>Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing?

That's not the alternative, though. Drones are used in hundreds of situations where without them, the US simply wouldn't have taken action.

[darawk]

And it's your belief that not taking action would be better?

[kentm]

In many cases, probably. In other cases, probably not. The fear is that drone strikes lower the bar for how certain you have to be that "action" will have better results, because the practical risks have been substantially lowered. If the bar is lowered, then we may be choosing the "no action" a lot less even if it was warranted.

[darawk]

Certainly. I agree 100%. They lower the bar, and that increases their frequency. No question about that. However, you can say the same about literally any military technology. Bulletproof vests have the same effect. The question at hand is: is this lowered bar leading us to make bad judgments?

I see people pointing at cases where civilians were killed and saying "See! Its bad!". But that isn't an argument that it was a bad judgment. Collateral damage is, unfortunately, inevitable with the technology that we have. The question we have to ask is: is the amount of collateral damage we're causing worthwhile and/or could we substantially reduce collateral damage without harming our objectives. And i've basically never seen anyone even attempt to make that case.

[solitus]

Worthwhile in terms of saving other human lives or in terms of capital?

[darawk]

Worthwhile ethically/morally. So, considering all factors, to include saving lives and capital.

[Tyrek]

Are you certain that every drone strike that's ever been made has had a positive impact on the world?

[Forbo]

I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. Perhaps the inclusion of the absolutist "every drone strike... ever".

But this raises a valid concern. Is drone striking weddings really winning the hearts and minds of people, or is it just setting up the next generation of (IMO, justified) hate toward the US? [0] [1]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airs... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haska_Meyna_wedding_party_airs...

[darawk]

Do you believe that those outcomes were the intent of the person that authorized these missions?

[PhasmaFelis]

It doesn't matter.

Adults are expected to understand the potential consequences of their actions. If you knowingly fire missiles into a populated area, you don't get to say "oops, I didn't mean to" when you accidentally kill a few dozen innocent civilians.

[detaro]

If you're merely incompetent to use the tools available to you appropriately (instead of maliciously misusing them), I can see why people don't want to give you sharper ones anyways.

[cm2187]

None of 9/11 hijackers were victimized by the US. Islamist militants don’t need drone strikes to hate the US.

[freeflight]

So this has now become a "We've always been at war with Islam!"? Is that kind of 1984esque discourse really helpful?

For some proper context, I really suggest reading this CS Monitor piece from back in 2001 [0].

Keen observers will quickly realize that pretty much everything written there has become reality over these past 17 years. It should also be noted that there's a certain irony to it when the "Christian Science Monitor" is peeved about your religious rhetoric being a bit too much on the extreme end.

This is something that seemingly passed by many US Americans like it never happened. But you can't declare yourself a "Christian nation" going on "crusades", hinging large parts of your popularity drive on this imagined "clash of the cultures", and then act all surprised and outraged when the opposite side also reacts with more radicalization.

Just looking at the trends for global terrorism for these past 2 decades [1], there's a very clear picture to be found there. Before 2002 countries like India, Colombia and Algeria topped the "terrorism charts".

But by 2003, as a response to the "War on Terror" started by the US, you already see Iraq and Afghanistan making their way up the list, steadily increasing in the number of attacks and fatalities until in 2005 they take the top.

Since then there's been little change, only Pakistan making their way up there some years, one might wonder why? [2]

But all three of these countries represent massive outliers and make up the vast majority of "Islamic terrorism", what do they all have in common?

9/11 was bad, no debate there. But the US's reaction to 9/11 was worse, it perfectly played into Osamas original intentions of starting a "culture clash", stigmatizing even moderate Islam in the Western world, making frustrated and discriminated moderates more likely to join his cause.

In that context, the US pretty much kicked a hornet's nest down the street and still keeps kicking it to this day. Yet many US Americans keep wondering where the angry hornets are coming from and "why they hate us so much".

[0] https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html

[1] https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/globe/index.html

[2] http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/

[dwaltrip]

Most statements that attempt to characterize every single instance of a phenomenon are heavily flawed, regardless of what they say. Especially in complex systems, such as those involving humans.

It seems to me that your question is coming at this from the wrong angle.

[xvector]

Now we are getting into indefinable moral calculus. If drone strikes have a net positive impact, are they justified? If you are in a train about to run over three people but can change the direction to run over one, do you do it?

[darawk]

No. But we've elected and appointed people who's job it is to:

a) be aware of all the information relevant to each operation

b) make a judgment as to whether each individual operation is worthwhile

Now, i'm not saying that makes them infallible. It certainly doesn't. There's a long history of people in such positions making poor choices. But if you're implying that they are, i'd like to see some evidence. Because what I see is a lot of "civilians died, therefore it was bad", but very little consideration of the objective of the mission, and whether or not the possibility of collateral damage was justified. What we do know is that smart people in positions of power believed that it was, and i'm happy to second-guess those beliefs if given good reason, but thus far i've never seen anyone give good reason in the case of these drone strikes.

[Forbo]

> ...thus far i've never seen anyone give good reason in the case of these drone strikes.

Because the very action they are using to eliminate enemy combatants may in fact be creating more of them?

[darawk]

> Because the very action they are using to eliminate enemy combatants may in fact be creating more of them?

That's an interesting statement. Do you have evidence for it?

[landryraccoon]

I write code, and I'm quite certain that not every line of code written has had a positive impact on the world.

[ameister14]

In many cases, absolutely.

[darawk]

Which cases are those?

[ameister14]

How about these two?

https://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_y...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2011/sep/30/anwar-al-...

[darawk]

Both of these are troubling to me from a legal perspective, it concerns me that these citizen's due process rights were waived, particularly in secret, with secret justifications.

It does not trouble me at all from a moral position that these individual were targeted and killed, however. If they were not US citizens, i'd consider this an excellent example of a great use of drones. Do you disagree and if so why?

[PhasmaFelis]

I mean, yeah? I know there have been cases where drone strikes were justified, but it really only takes one instance of "We think there's some terrorists at this wedding, so let's fire a fragmentation missile into the middle of it, and then another one a few minutes later to make sure we kill the paramedics and firemen too" to decide that the US military is not responsible enough to be allowed to make these decisions.

Edit: Actually I'll go further than that. You lose all moral authority to wage war the moment you start deliberately targeting civilian medics, and that's standard policy with US drone strikes. See "double-tap."

[darawk]

> I mean, yeah? I know there have been cases where drone strikes were justified, but it really only takes one instance of "We think there's some terrorists at this wedding, so let's fire a fragmentation missile into the middle of it, and then another one a few minutes later to make sure we kill the paramedics and firemen too" to decide that the US military is not responsible enough to be allowed to make these decisions.

You think their policy is designed to kill civilian medics? Or do you think the policy was designed to kill other terrorists who come by to try to save their brothers?

[PhasmaFelis]

It's designed to kill anyone who comes to the aid of the injured. In any built-up area, that will obviously include ambulance personnel; there's no way the policy-makers do not know this. So, yes, it is absolutely designed to kill civilian medics and concerned neighbors/bystanders, and has done so over and over. See also:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at...

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2013-08-01/get...

[darawk]

> In any built-up area

Was it being done in built-up areas? I see the word 'rescuer' being used in these articles. But I notably do not see the word 'civilian'. A terrorist who tries to save the lives of his terrorist buddies is still a 'rescuer', and that's exactly who these drone strikes ought to be targeting.

[srtjstjsj]

All those child terrorists?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333

[darawk]

You think it is unethical to accidentally kill a single child in the fight against international terrorism?

[drak0n1c]

The US in WW2 and Vietnam used binoculars and radio to make decisions on general areas that should be Napalm firebombed because that happened to be the most accurate technology available for sensing, communicating, and striking. We've come a long way - but why assume the current state of things is the ideal toolset to stop at? If you're upset at the status quo, why preserve it?

Also, unfortunately other technologically advanced powers exist. Regardless of the desire for pacifist isolationism, Russia and China will continue to work on military technology, and it only takes a few decades of complacency to fall far behind.

[marricks]

That is such a false dichotomy.

Consider arming police officers with tasers. We were promised it would be an alternative to guns and help protect civilians but instead police officers use tasers a ton and still shoot people a ton as well.[1]

There’s always the excuse new smarter technologies will save lives but it ends up the “safer” they are the lower the threshold to use.

1. Da_chicken’s reply below has a good source!

[da_chicken]

Research as shown that when police are armed with tasers, they will use them in situations where previously no violence would have been used at all. Additionally, tasers will be used not just to subdue an individual who is a threat, but also simply to punish those who fail to comply. Further, the police will ignore the safety limitations which would prohibit repeated use of a taser.

You cannot escape the law of unintended consequences.

https://www.alternet.org/story/149115/the_6_most_shocking_ca...

[ntsplnkv2]

You can escape it if you actually think about the scenario on the ground.

A taser can't replace a gun, it doesn't function like a gun, it's not as reliable as a gun, it doesn't have the range, etc.

But it can be useful in lieu of physical force or if someone is resisting, which is what became its use case.

[PavlovsCat]

> These men were able to give the counsel they gave because they were operating at an enormous psychological distance from the people who would be maimed and killed by the weapons systems that would result from the ideas they communicated to their sponsors. The lesson, therefore, is that the scientist and technologist must, by acts of will and of the imagination, actively strive to reduce such psychological distances, to counter the forces that tend to remove him from the consequences of his actions. He must -- it is as simple as this -- think of what he is actually doing.

-- Joseph Weizenbaum in "Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment To Calculation" written in 1976, more timely than ever

[babuskov]

> Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing?

Weren't drones used to carefully select targets inside cities and other areas with civilians. I'm not sure carpet bombing is an alternative for those cases:

"Carpet bombing of cities, towns, villages, or other areas containing a concentration of civilians is considered a war crime[5] as of the 1977 Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions." - source Wikipedia entry for Carpet Bombing

[srtjstjsj]

That's irrelevant. There is no world police to stop the US from carpet bombing, nor would the US tolerate drone strikes against the USA as somehow acceptable.

[andrepd]

>Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing?

Because there are more courses of action other than "drone strike" and "carpet bombing".

[ucaetano]

> Because there are more courses of action other than "drone strike" and "carpet bombing".

Indeed, but those courses aren't always available, and war will happen in the way war happens.

If not, your argument isn't about drones, it is about pacifism. That's like saying "I'll magically lift everyone out of the way" in the trolley problem. Sure, it is a nice thought, but it is not an answer to the question.

I'll ask again: if the only two options were carpet bombing and smart bombs, which one would you choose?

Don't run away from the question.

[vladTheInhaler]

Taking issue with the problem statement isn't the same as running away from the question. You're presenting a false dichotomy.

In some imaginary world where you are somehow being compelled to chose between a button that says "Drone Strike" and one that says "Carpet Bombing", obviously "Drone Strike" is the correct option. But, equally obviously, that is a terrible model for reality. In reality, the decision maker always has the option to not kill anybody at that time. Yes, always. There might be other consequences for that choice, but admitting that it exists isn't pacifism, it's just common sense.

[kazen44]

smart bombs is the obvious answer, but your question is has a false pretense.

Carpet bombing and a drone strike are not in the same "solution space", its like trying to tighten your shoelaces with your hands or with a 10 ton excevator.

[ucaetano]

> Carpet bombing and a drone strike are not in the same "solution space", its like trying to tighten your shoelaces with your hands or with a 10 ton excevator.

Oh, but they are (particularly because I'm not just including drone strikes, but smart bombs).

Wanna destroy a factory, a power-plant, a bunker, a government office?

In WW2, you'd just carpet-bomb the surrounding area and hope some bombs hit the target.

Today, you deliver a payload to a specific part of it.

Compare the bombing of Belgrade in the Balkan wars to any WW2 bombing run.

There are two discussions in place:

- How we make weapons more precise and limit collateral damage - How we reduce the need for weapons in the first place

Both lead to a better situation than the status quo.

[drb91]

> Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing?

That’s a false dichotomy. You could do neither.

[A2017U1]

> Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing?

That's the only alternative?

[danharaj]

> Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing?

No one was ever going to carpet bomb a wedding.

[ucaetano]

> No one was ever going to carpet bomb a wedding.

Not a wedding, indeed, an entire town, with possibly dozens of weddings happening at the same time. Plus hospitals, schools, etc.

If you had to pick between carpet bombing and smart bombs, which one would you pick? (And consider you don't have a choice, like the trolley problem, you NEED to pick one).

[mrguyorama]

>And consider you don't have a choice

How do we not have a choice to NOT bomb a desert on the other side of the world?

[openfuture]

Okay let's just assume I figured out a clever way around your constraints while still avoiding the answer you want us to give. Are you just going to add another constraint to hide from the truth?

Can you at least accept that the burden of proof is on the guy who wants to go bomb random people not on the pacifists.

[3131s]

> And consider you don't have a choice, like the trolley problem, you NEED to pick one

Can I choose to drop the bomb on Americans instead?

[tome]

They've carpet bombed other places when they didn't have the alternative of a targeted strike at a wedding.

[ameister14]

Really? When and where?

[tome]

Throughout the 20th century across the globe.

[ameister14]

Ah, I had assumed you were talking about any time in the last 30 years.

[ryanmercer]

Operation Gomorrah which began on 24 July 1943 and lasted for 8 days and 7 nights. Hamburg, Germany.

>killing 42,600 civilians and wounding 37,000 in Hamburg and virtually destroying most of the city.

>The unusually warm weather and good conditions meant that the bombing was highly concentrated around the intended targets and also created a vortex and whirling updraft of super-heated air which created a 460 meter high tornado of fire.

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

---

17 January 1991 – 23 February 1991

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

>2,000–3,000 Iraqi civilians killed

>10,000–12,000 killed

>100,000 sorties, dropping 88,500 tons of bombs,

>Coalition bombing raids destroyed Iraqi civilian infrastructure. 11 of Iraq's 20 major power stations and 119 substations were totally destroyed, while a further six major power stations were damaged.[18][19] At the end of the war, electricity production was at four percent of its pre-war levels. Bombs destroyed the utility of all major dams, most major pumping stations, and many sewage treatment plants, telecommunications equipment, port facilities, oil refineries and distribution, railroads and bridges were also destroyed.

---

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia

March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999

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

>The bombing killed between 489 and 528 civilians, and destroyed bridges, industrial plants, public buildings, private businesses, as well as barracks and military installations.

>In 2000, a year after the bombing ended, Group 17 published a survey dealing with damage and economic restoration. The report concluded that direct damage from the bombing totalled $3.8 billion, not including Kosovo, of which only 5% had been repaired at that time

>In 2006, a group of economists from the G17 Plus party estimated the total economic losses resulting from the bombing were about $29.6 billion.

[ameister14]

Neither the Gulf War air campaign nor the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia qualifies as a 'carpet bombing.' Both struck individually targeted strategic targets while attempting to minimize civilian casualties.

[Spooky23]

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_Wa...

We're in a world where the destructive properties of a modern army are so extreme that combat has evolved/devolved to medieval like small scale/intensity battle. Instead of targeting economic output, social networks of individuals are targeted.

People always seek effective ways to kill their enemies in conflict.