The number of kills is crazy. I don't know how I would handle knowing the amount of people that died due to my envolvement. What a weird stat to give them. I wouldn't think anybody would want to know.
Well that's really something you can never put a number on. But giving them the number of people that they killed or helped killed seems like a disgusting thing to give anybody. Even his reaction to being given that number seems like my thought is validated of what kind of damage that does to somebody's mind.
No, the only difference would be the actions were justified. It would never be any less disgusting giving somebody that stat. Yet they will never know how many people were saved due to their actions. Just like they will never know how many innocent people that they have killed. They can estimate to the extreme either way yet the real numbers will never be known. That is the saddest part of these drones.
Seems like it, but it's pretty normal in war. For example, fighter pilots have always kept track of kills going back to World War I. Here are the 80 planes the Red Baron took down, with dates, plane type, etc: http://history1900s.about.com/library/misc/blredbaronkills.htm
I think the difference in the two is the Mr. Bryant was never really precisely sure who he was killing. Just like the part in the article in which he doesn't know if he had killed a child. Or the the three men that he didn't know whether they actually had weapons on them or not. That has to weigh on the mind more then fighter pilots hitting down other planes. Maybe not though. I just think that these Drones are very susceptible to human error more so then anything else and that they are dealing with human lives seems disturbing. Just like the the 17 people dead in Yemen after a drone strike. There were 5 suspects that might of have involvement with Al Qaeda but I don't believe that would ever by justification for killing 12 other innocent people. If it was accidental then this tragedy is not acceptable.
I think my big issue with the drone strikes is the nature of war. When you can automate war to a degree that perhaps it makes it more likely to be at war when your own citizens' lives aren't at risk. I don't like the way we conduct wars without the consent of Congress, without a declaration of war, and without shared sacrifice by the country. For the last 10 years we've been at war and nobody would know by the way the country has continued forward. The whole thing is a bad precedent for the future. I don't want drones fighting wars on my behalf. If it's a war that needs fighting, people should fight it not sitting in cubicles flying armed drones around blowing **** up like it's a video game. War is a messy horrible thing and drones sanitize it and I believe it makes us more likely to be at constant war.
I'd rather our friends, family and loved one conduct war through a monitor and joystick than send them out to the desert to get shot at, dragged nude through the streets and displayed on youtube videos. It's done like that so that it never has to be you defending your home from invaders here. Protecting your family from those same animals. Btw, I'm as liberal as you can get.
What if one of the people you kill wasn't a terrorist, but now that you killed him one of his relatives decides to become one and then goes on to kill someone. Too many what ifs. The number of direct kills is a much easier number to quantify.
This is easy to say when you're just saying other people should die on your behalf instead of yourself. Are you opposed to cruise missiles and bombs too? Should we go back to the World Wars where millions of people need to die to conduct war?
Yes, we'll have less wars when you and I have to go fight them. Supporting a constant state of war is the luxury of those who never have to fight in them.
Great post would rep if I could, that's pretty much exactly what happens. Vicious cycle. Ignorance like tall's is one of the reasons many Iraqis and our own soldiers had to die.
The history of the world disagrees with you. The world had far more wars in the past than now, and they were far more devastating.
Actually they weren't far more devastating to the average civilian. That's why WW1 came as such a shock to the world.
World War 2 was a lesson that brokered a covenant that bonded all of the major powers together so as to avoid major global conflict. I do not think that same lesson can be learned if war is as simple and as painless as pushing buttons. We're steadily devolving into two worlds. one where peace and prosperity are given, and the other where killings pile up. War has to be harder choice then whether or not to push a button, and if it isn't, the American people owe it to themselves to make it as hard as possible for people to kill in their names.
Rampaging armies that burned towns to the ground, raped the women, etc were definitely far more devastating to the average civilian. Do you think drones are more devastating than Genghis Khan?
WW1 was the first time "total war" became the norm. It took the Genghis Khan mentality (a rarity in ancient times) and applied it with modern weapons. Modern technology can vaporize entire cities. Let's not try to think like we did in ancient times.
And the American government has a responsibility to make it as less painful as possible to defend itself from other powers. Not all war is voluntary. If we're attacked, our military should be designed to defeat an enemy with minimal casualties to its own citizens. Even better if we can win with minimizing casualties to the enemy as well. I find it bizarre that this is even up for debate.
