Comment by tsally | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tsally | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I feel like we have a bunch of trigger-happy teenagers viewing the world through a video-game-like HUD with a joystick, just itching to light something up.

Your analysis strikes me as a bit glib.

There are two critical pieces to this issue and I think it is important we distinguish between the two. The first part (which is what you are trying to get at) is that the prospect of warfare being conducted through a video-game like interface is scary and feels wrong. I agree and I get a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach just thinking about it. Imagine soldiers driving to work in the morning from their homes in the suburbs, putting in a 9-5 day piloting a drone killing insurgents, and then going home to their families in time for dinner. Very scary.

However, the second part is what you miss. These military personnel are kids. Kids that we ask to conduct a large scale invasion and then engage in the near-impossible task of nation building. As Thomas Barnett says, the same 19 year old just can't do it all. These kids should have been out of Iraq after we captured Saddam. They aren't psychologically equipped to deal with a country post-invasion. This video is a perfect example of that. Notice how the kid mistakes a camera for a weapon and is extremely jumpy when he is trying to figure out whether he is being shot at. He's never been trained to deal with this kind of situation (urban warfare, enemies without uniforms, civilians intermixed with soldiers) and it's criminal we force teenagers make these kinds of decisions every day.

All of that said, clearly bad decisions were made in this video. I'm not disputing that. But there are two crimes in this video.

Why is everyone calling these soldiers kids?

There's a good chance the pilots at least are older than most of the people reading this forum.

There's a good chance the pilots at least are older than most of the people reading this forum.

Do you have a basis for your opinion, or are you just making things up?

Actually, I already know the answer to that question. The average age of all active duty military is 28. 37% of the Marine Corps is between the ages of 17 and 21 [1]. And when you remove all the higher ranking officers (who are not very likely to be gunning for an Apache), the average age gets even lower.

Based on this poll [2], it appears the average age of HN is between 21 and 35. The data from the HN survey appears to have been taken down; that would give a much better answer. Regardless, your wrong in saying the average reader of this forum is probably younger than the military personal flying the helicopter. At best you can say it's unclear.

[1] http://www.slideshare.net/pastinson/us-military-active-duty-...

[2] http://news.ycombinator.net/item?id=800158

EDIT: For the record, the parent post contains 100% factually incorrect information and this post contains a refutation with cited facts. Currently the voting split is 9/-1. This is an emotional issue, but let's try and not be so reactionary.

EDIT2: The parent is factually correct because waterlesscloud is referring to the age of the pilot, whereas I thought we were talking about the gunner (the person whose actions are in question). I also assumed the marines were involved, which is also incorrect. Sorry for the false accusation.

Marines don't fly Apaches, the Army does, so Marine age data is completely irrelevant.

Helicopter pilots in general trend older than ground grunts, due to training requirements and so on. And many of the Apache pilots in Iraq were/are reservists, so they trend older as well.

The first female Apache pilot already had 20 years of service when she was assigned to an Apache. The oldest British Apache pilot is 54.

It's not something some kid does right out of highschool. There are no teenagers flying Apaches.

I don't know, which is why I said "a good chance", but my estimate would be that the average Apache pilot is in their 30s.

Is the pilot also the gunner? Because I would think the person that pulled the trigger would be the one we should talk about. When I said kid, I was talking about the gunner. It's the gunner's decision making we are evaluating, after all. I don't think the age of the pilot matters as far as this video is concerned. In fact, your points about the age of helicopter pilots reinforces my point. Maturity is required for positions of great responsibility.

The Apache has a pilot and an observer/gunner. Both positions are pretty highly skilled -- the observer has to know how to use all the targeting electronics, etc. You would have to be crazy to spend God-knows-how-much on an Apache and then put a 19-year-old in the back seat.

Ok, fair enough. I appreciate the corrections.

I may be mistaken, but I believe both crew of an Apache are typically at least E-7, so, at a guess, 25-30-ish at the low end.

The point of waterlesscloud's post is that we shouldn't assume things we don't know. This is also the point of your post, I think. Also you need to brush up on statistics if you thing your logic proves much of anything.

If they are pilots, they are officers most likely (or Warrants), which means they have at least a 4 year degree and often a Master's before entering OCS and skills training (skills like flight training which takes about 12 months). Sure you can fast track some of this (there's a flight school program that's only 9 months), or you could get your education at West Point or something, and get out of flight school at maybe 21-22, but that's not the norm.

I'd put their ages no younger than 23 on the low end. More typically mid to late 20s with a few in their 30s (usually Warrant Officers).

Aviators are commissioned officers, who are usually 22 at the youngest (quickest way to a commission is a college degree). Most commissioned officers are older than that, of course.

You have to be under 33 to get into flight school, usually: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armytrng/ss/rotarypilot_2.htm

Once you've graduated flight school you'll continue serving as an aviator for some number of years. Unlike enlisted, officers are given a perpetual commission which may have a service obligation attached (if you're an ROTC or Academy graduate, for instance) or not. Also, I gather that a lot of Apache pilots are warrant officers. Warrant officers are generally previous enlisted with a LOT of experience--these guys are generally in their 30's or so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com