Hacker News Reader

We also accidentally dropped two nukes in Japan, and accidentally made Napalm and Agent Orange rain into the Vietnamese, with enormously high and vastly-civilian casualties in both cases. And these are just easy cases where direct responsibility can be tracked all way up to the commander-in-chief, so please no BS about no official strategy.

And then of course, the military chain of command is exceedingly good at diluting responsibility -- generals will demand results implying but not writing down how far commanders can go; soldiers and commanders will cross many lines which no colleagues will report() and no immediate superiors will punish; the press will be strictly managed to not see anything that "national security" doesn't need us to see so our own civilian population will be morally appeased that we're being righteous, everyone is happy.

() A few will do, and then they're jailed for life as traitors.

> We also accidentally dropped two nukes in Japan, and accidentally made Napalm and Agent Orange rain into the Vietnamese, with enormously high and vastly-civilian casualties in both cases.

Don't forget the extensive firebombings of numerous cities including Dresden or Tokyo (casualties estimates for the latter are in the same 100000~200000 range as the two nuclear strikes combined)

Which has still issues today – every few weeks whole districts in German cities are evacuated, because they found another WWII bomb with chemical timer that hasn’t exploded yet.

Yep, and in more recent years, we've lead the way in nuclear disarmament. We haven't firebombed entire cities in decades . In the past 8 years we've (to my great relief) de-escalated our military actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Our military leaders take pains to make sure drone attacks and military incursions are as precise as possible. We've done this because we've recognized, unlike terrorists, that civilian deaths are extremely unhelpful to our foreign policy.

Again I'm not saying the US's hands are clean. I wholly disagree with many of the foreign military actions we've taken - especially between 2000 and 2008. What am I saying is that our policy - along with international law - have evolved considerably in the past 60 years. And I also sincerely believe that most of our armed forces in present day are doing their very best to avoid killing civilians.

I also think a lot of this is hand-waving away of the critical differences between terrorists who think it is acceptable to walk into a concert hall and gun down hundreds of people, and the militaries who are fighting those terrorists.

Nothing is simple, but there are meaningful moral differences here.

> In the past 8 years we've (to my great relief) de-escalated our military actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

You're relieved about what's going on in Iraq? Seems like a big mess to me.

As bad as whatever the U.S. has done in the Middle East, it hasn't beheaded civilians to make political statements or committed genocide against religious and cultural minorities.

We can certainly discuss if the U.S. should pull out anyway, but I don't feel "relief" in making the least awful choice.

It is a big mess, but I'm relieved that our foreign policy has been reset and that if there will be further action in the Middle East it will be one undertaken and lead by an true international coalition (not the fake international coalition that invaded Iraq in 2003 for reasons un-related to terrorism). We won't keep pretending (at least not for the time-being) that it's even possible for the US alone to make sure that no terrorist attacks happen anywhere. Terrorism is not US's problem alone, it is a multinational problem with a multinational - and probably not even a military - solution. I'm glad the US's foreign policy has changed to reflect that reality.

You seem very confident of how the US will act in the future.

Have you heard of a guy called Donald Trump?

Despite his current standing in polls, I am extremely extremely skeptical that Donald Trump will win the nomination of a major political party.

I certainly hope so. But what about the next rich old white guy who panders to the ignorant masses in the next election cycle (or the one after, or the one after that).

Predicting that the US will remain in the hands of some what sensible leaders seems rather naive to me.

> I am extremely extremely skeptical that Donald Trump will win the nomination of a major political party.

There's some very good structural reasons to expect that, even if gets the most votes in the primaries, he may not win the Republican nomination.

OTOH, major parties have collapsed entirely before in US politics, and not having a candidate finish at least second in the Presidential general election would be a pretty big sign of collapse -- and pretty much every three-way head-to-head poll conducted with any has an independent Trump taking the #2 spot by a wide margin over the Republican.

Trump may well define the major party that replaces the Republicans.

The comment you're responding was edited to couch the argument in "now at least".

The Drone Papers asserts ~90% of people killed by drone strikes weren't the intended target (with a wide mix of civilians, combatants, and unknown). https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/ Other sources, eg the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/dron...), provide more granular data over time. Precision is somewhat lacking in estimates due to the inherent secrecy.

While the number of actions, targets, deaths, and total casualties varies by nation (Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia...), a high rate of collateral damage is clearly an accepted part of the current strategy.

The firebombing of Dresden in WW2 (which killed 25,000 civilians) was according to at least one RAF memo due to the fact that it was primarily a civilian city with undamaged housing:

“Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also far the largest unbombed built-up the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.” [1]

In other words, it was specifically targeted because the civilians were conflated with "the enemy" broadly, to deny resources to refugees, to demoralize the German public, and to warn the potential Soviet enemies of Allied military prowess. Definitely a lot worse things happened in WW2, but neither British nor American hands are exactly clean when it comes to war.

[1] Source: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-bombi...

> they were acting against orders, at least the orders of the high command.

Do you have any evidence of this or are you just asserting to because it sounds nice? Intentional disregard for civilian casualties was rampant on all sides of WWII. There were about as many civilian fatalities (not including disease and famine) as there were military fatalities. The firebombing attacks during WWII were brutal.

> It is not part of the official US strategy to target civilians - in fact it is part of the official US strategy to not target civilians. On the other hand, it is part of the official, stated strategy of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Shebab, Boko Haram, and other terrorist organizations, to intentionally murder civilians in the most visible way possible.

Saying "we don't target civilians" doesn't get you any points. You have to actually not target civilians (or say, red cross hospitals).

'Do you have any evidence of this or are you just asserting to because it sounds nice?'

I don't have evidence that what the parent said happened actually happened. I'm not saying it didn't happen but I don't have any evidence that it did. Do you?

"Saying "we don't target civilians" doesn't get you any points"

Not targeting civilians gets you a lot of points. 'Intent' vs 'non-intent' (along with 'consent' vs 'non-consent') is in my view the central concept of all ethical / moral discussions.

As for whether or not US soldiers, either disobeying orders, obeying direct orders, or obeying the orders from high up in the chain of command, actually kill civilians, yes, that is a critical part of this conversation as well. But it is much easier to stop killing civilians when it is not a stated part of our foreign policy, our military strategy, or our laws to deliberately do so. And I can't say the same thing about ISIS or Al Shabaab or terrorists in general.

> it is not a stated part of our foreign policy, our military strategy, or our laws to deliberately do so.

You heard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive before? The aim of your foreign policy was literally to hurt civilian morale by de-housing them and killing their friends, family, etc.

I am only glad that, after the war, you decided it would be best to help by rebuilding all that.

First, that was Britain's directive, not the US, though the US definitely indiscriminately bombed cities in both the European and Pacific theatres as well. Second, Germans were conducting a campaign of area bombing against London in the Battle of Britain and the Blitz, as well [1]:

'The Luftwaffe, which Hitler had prohibited from bombing civilian areas in the UK, was now ordered to bomb British cities.'

So this attitude of 'total war' was not one-sided and was precipitated by Germany's "accidental" bombing of British civilian areas, followed by their expressly deliberate bombing of civilian areas.

None of this makes this right, but World War II was not the finest hour for anyone in the conflict, and people were generally responding in kind to defend themselves. This was before many of the international norms that are in place today existed.

Third, I have already said repeatedly that the US has blood on its hands, but I have also argued that our military policy has evolved considerably since 1945.

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

And I’d like to quote myself:

> I’m not saying the US is bad, or good, I’m trying to say there is no "good" side in a war. No one in a war is innocent.

> There is a side that gasses jews, and a side that nukes civilians. There is a side that bombs hospitals, and a side that blows themselves up at a concert in Paris. There’s a side that massacres disabled people, and a side that shoots children.

> We can’t compare, or even weigh up the sides against each other, and doing so would miss the point. But we can’t say "only terrorists kill civilians".

>I don't have evidence that what the parent said happened actually happened. I'm not saying it didn't happen but I don't have any evidence that it did. Do you?

Chuck Yeager admitted to participating in missions over Europe that involved strafing civilians, and more generally committing atrocities (his word) in his first autobiography. It's so baffling that this would come as a shock to you, in light of the more heavily publicized and more terrible bombing in the Pacific theatre.

It is not surprising to me. If you read over this entire thread you'll see that I acknowledge that the US has blood on its hands but I also argue that we have made considerable progress in foreign policy particularly with regard to how we treat civilian casualties. This, and the critical difference of 'intent,' is something conveniently ignored by those who want to hand-wave away the difference between the foreign policy of Western countries and the actions of extremists who indiscriminately murder un-armed civilians routinely and without warning. It is a false equivalence.

Just correcting that one bit of obvious, gross ignorance or dishonesty. I'm sure you're a total expert about everything else.

As I'm sure you are as well.

One of the things that eludes the mindset of the ideologue is that you can have civil disagreements. In other words, you can disagree with someone without being a fucking dick about it.

I'm not an ideologue at all, although there's nothing wrong with that. I'm just annoyed by people who pontificate at length about historical matters of which they are ignorant.

> I don't have evidence that what the parent said happened actually happened.

The parent provided evidence via hearsay from his grandmother. Him providing a source for his assertion lets us make our own judgements about it's veracity.

You made a definitive statement:

> they were acting against orders, at least the orders of the high command

I assumed you had some reason, possibly just hearsay regarding similar incidents, leading you to make that assertion. If you don't have any actual reason for believing it, then you are just saying it because it sounds nice. That makes you propagandist/liar.

It's easy to be self righteous when you hold all the cards though....

I mean, can you imagine a small group of terrorists being able to effectively target the US military? Of course not. So these people do what they can in an attempt to achieve their objectives. If the rich nations of the world were truly pushed against the wall (rather than mildly annoyed) they would likely resume killing civilians in a heartbeat.

Never mind the effects of the military campaigns themselves kill plenty of civilians even if these are not directly targeted.

So the young Luke should ignore the actual situation on the ground, and take the Empire's publicly-stated policy as moral truth?

It is not part of the official US strategy to target civilians

Official or not, the US's actual conduct kills a LOT of civilians - by some reckonings, our drone war has killed more civilians than it has actual enemy combatants.

I think it's fair for our hypothetical middle eastern Skywalker to look at his actual experience, rather than accepting propaganda at face value.

You are absolutely correct.

Every time we have collateral damage in a drone strike, every time someone's child is killed by a missile or bomb dropped by an American aircraft, that child's father is going to go to war with whomever dropped that bomb, fired that missile, sent that drone.

If instead of burning corpses, Luke had found Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru at home waiting to ground him for a month, he would have never gone with Obi-Wan.

The Empire's heavy handedness lead to its downfall.

> The Empire's heavy handedness lead to its downfall.

Really? I would have blamed the Empire's downfall on not being bus proof and falling apart on the Emperor's death. Sounds like poor planning to me.

The US politics and military had often redeclared civilian targets as the military targets and then caused enough "collateral damage." Even politicians alone do that (before military strikes) with the systems of sanctions. It was claimed in the media that some 500 thousand Iraqi children died as the effects of the sanctions to Iraq even before the last Iraq war. Then the politicians are surprised that their army isn't welcomed.

> That's why they order soldiers not to and why it is officially against the law of the United States

That's what's so beautiful about language. We can simply redefine anyone in a war zone as an enemy combatant. Want to bomb a school or hospital? Say they were aiding insurgents. Ta da, moral high ground maintained.

So the rule is: You must not under any circumstances kill any civilians, unless you know it's an accident.