Yes, it most certainly does. I used to be a submarine officer in the Navy, but I was discharged 2 years ago as a conscientious objector [1]. I left because I felt I had a moral responsibility to do so.

If your conscience says "don't kill someone," then you shouldn't kill them. You can't absolve yourself of responsibility just because the president ordered the killing.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/nyregion/23objector.html?p...

Surely those who order the killing, those who pay for it, and those who permit it by voting for the war, bear some of the responsibility?

However, taking the whole of his post and the one you're replying to, I believe it's an incontrovertible fact that there are citizens in a warmaking country who are not responsible: the ones who didn't want to go to war.

But what the OP said, and what you "wholeheartedly agreed" with was absolute and complete rubbish.

The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is what keeps countries from launching nukes at each other. In order to have that doctrine in place, we need people in the military who are willing to launch nukes, and that military needs to be firmly under the control of the civilian government.

In that context, was your objection to fire any nuke a personal decision, i.e. you personally wouldn't be comfortable with ending so many lives (who would?) or was it a wider objection, i.e. you feel it's immoral for any military personnel to be willing to launch nukes? If it's the former, then I totally understand. But if it's the latter, would you help me understand how to reconcile that belief with the necessity of mutually assured destruction? They seem to be at odds.

So I ask myself, "What am I doing right now to reduce war?" or "What am I doing right now to help the homeless living in my city?" This is how I measure whether or not I'm following Jesus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction#Cri...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLA_Marshall#World_War_II_comb...

With the regard of the enemy of state a so-called terrorist in the US today I have the same fundamental problems as with the enemy of the state called Jew in the Nazi Germany: 1. No definition of terrorist, hence anyone can be one including 82-old nuns: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/10/protesting-n... 2. "Terrorists" are devoid of all human and citizen rights. No right to free trial, no right to the attorney, no right to be not tortured, not right to be suspected innocent unless proven guilty, etc.

So now the dirty work of killing these quite often completely innocent people is handed over to those squads. And they just remind me of "special operations" done by SS Totenkopf. Go there kill a boy because his daddy is a suspected terrorist. And then kill their whole family too. All I'm saying there is difference in scale, but the legal ramifications are very similar. What stops the Government from labeling you a terrorist and targeting you? How will you proof your innocence without a trial and attorney?

There's parts of the government that have been caught doing really ridiculous, illegal things, and other parts of the government that have made costly mistakes, but you make it sound like the entire thing is a big conspiracy to kill innocent people in Afghanistan. That borders on insanity.

What kind of job could you do after having a background in "press the button when it's time to nuke someone"?

I'm a CS grad student right now. I'm not eligible for federal funding so I teach for money.

[Edit: I was once young too, I don't hold it against anyone. Nothing more heartbreaking than a 19y/o with the 1000 yard stare (which I've personally witnessed.)]

No they are not. The are risk free and relatively cheap, meaning its easier to order their use. The easier war is, the easier it is to make war.

"The fact that the combatant is sitting very far away from the battle doesn't make the killing any less real"

Oh yes it does. There have been plenty of studies that clearly demonstrate this. It is always easier to press a button that look a man in the eyes and shoot him.

Lastly. How do you surrender to a robot?

Had Bin Laden and his men held up their hands and put down their weapons, they all may well be in US jails right now. Had that been a drone strike, that would not have even been a possibility.

I know that you aren't passing judgement yourself, but I hope that before anyone else does, they consider the fact that Bin Laden was extremely intelligent and fantastically disciplined. He was the kind of guy who ALWAYS considered every possibility. His system for remaining hidden was absolutely amazing in a world where highly educated people routinely make idiotic mistakes from an OPSEC standpoint. You could argue that air-gapping and delivering USB sticks to remote internet cafés isn't isn't impressive, but the reality is, few people stayed on top of their OPSEC like this guy did. When we did find him, it was because ONE guy on his crew fucked up, one time, after hiding for several years. The only OPSEC mistake that Bin Laden himself made was trusting a guy that had proven himself dependable for many years.

Now, when you have a really brilliant guy like this that already knows that at some point in the future, he will be found by his enemies, you have to consider the possibility that he prepared for it. Thus, when our guys rolled into the complex, they had every reason in the world to believe that either someone in the compound would be wired with explosives, or that the compound itself would be rigged. With that being a real possibility, you don't really have time to give someone a proper chance to surrender.

At some point we started to be very cynical about our own values, like liberalism for that example. I wish we had taken our own values more to the heart. That's the only way to win these things morally as well.

First of all, if Himmler and Goebbels were hell bent on fighting to the death, they almost certainly would have been shot and killed by U.S. forces. Perhaps not though, because high-ranking German officials aren't known for blowing themselves up, so there's a much better chance of taking them alive even if they do fight back.

Another thing to consider, is that after the Germans surrendered, they largely stopped trying to kill us. They lost, and we occupied their territory in a relatively peaceful manner. The same cannot be said for Afghanistan or Pakistan, so you really can't compare the situations.

It was decided precisely by all Allied Forces: USA, UK, USSR during Yalta Conference in 1945 that some kind of International Tribunal will be established to give the Nazis elite a fair process. Mind you, that was after 70m people dead and horrors of the war. When Aushwitz was months old history, not years old. And they still gave them free process. Why? Because they believed in the values of our civilization. Once the political will like that is there, we are morally victorious as well. We just show to the world that our values are different. What you show by killing innocent 16 year old boy whose only fault was to have a father that was suspected of terrorist acticity is that you yourself don't believe in your values anymore and are cynical about them. And this makes radical muslims case in their countries of origin this much stronger. "You see, they are just like us, they kill innocent children too, they are just hypocrites and cynical people when they talk about the freedom, democracy, due process. There are no such things in the world". They can say it, and you know what? They'll be right! On this level we already lost big time, there is no slightest shadow of a doubt about it in my mind. They are ready to commit suicide in the name of their values. We don't give a crap about our own. How exactly you want to win this war of civilizations in this circumstance? Robespierre was ready to die for Liberal values. And he did. Dantone was ready to die for Liberal values. And he did. People are not going to die in the name of cynism. Capture Bin Laden and give him free, honest, open free trial. That's what people who actually believe in what they preach would do. If we don't believe in these things anymore, why on Earth you think that we can even remotely win?

> Another thing to consider, is that after the Germans surrendered, they largely stopped trying to kill us. They lost, and we occupied their territory in a relatively peaceful manner. The same cannot be said for Afghanistan or Pakistan, so you really can't compare the situations.

Talibans didn't lost. You ask me, they are winning. Winning like a little fly being still alive wins when you try to kill it with a machine gun. Just by its existence is a proof of your inability to win using the current strategy.

I actually agree with you in principle, that a trial would have been preferable. I just don't see how it would have been possible without putting even more lives at risk.

How would you have recommended we go about apprehending him alive, without any casualties? Its clear that the Pakistanis weren't going to help us apprehend him any time soon.

I think, that if the US made a political decision to give this monster - Osama - a chance for a free trial, as well as other Al Quaida members that would be a step in the right direction as far as winning the war goes. Because you play by your own rules. When opposite is being done, like killing children who are US citizens by Presidential Order just because their parent was a suspected terrorist killed a week earlier - that's like we're Al Quaida now. Because we run this war the same way they do. Like terrorists. The whole point of 9/11 was that we give up our values - freedom, democracy, rights, capitalism - and we did just that. We became exactly what they wanted us to become. Instead of forcing them to play by our rules. Can you imagine bin Laden having a trial? It's the concept from our civilization. That even the worst monster - like a master mind behind the Holocaust - deserves a trial. That's what differentiates our civilization from theirs. Applying this rule to Osama, and him partaking in it, is showing the Arab world the suporiority of our system. Going there and killing him like a dog when he isn't armed, just execution mafia style, is showing them we're not better.

At this level of decision, I believe that the political decisions always overweight military ones. These are the top SEALs, this dude would stand no chance this or another way. Forcing a trial on him and his organization and sentencing to hanging for crimes against the humanity - this would resonate much more and have better outcome as long as winning the war goes. You show them - you put planes into buildings and kill thousands of innocents - and we still give you honest trial. That's what made us great. Believing in freedom. I think Arabs would be totally shocked to see that. They'd be more inclined to accept superiority of our system. And maybe that's why Germans in WW2 didn't fight after some point. They felt like moral losers. Like the evil that was defeated by something good. I think that's what we're lacking in this war. And without it, I doubt we will ever win it.

My point is about a human to human contact, or the lack there of. Not the specifics of these murders.

And make no mistake, they are murders. I don't use the term lightly. Even if they are authorised by Obama himself, Obama has no right what so ever over non Americans on non American soil, who didn't vote for him and don't live in the US or its territories. Eight follow international law, respect borders and so on, or become the terrorist. Which many would argue happened decades ago, hence the considerable international, hate and suspicion. When Amercia causes Europe to become skeptical and suspicious on a political level, something is wrong. We should be America's default ally and that's beginning to crumble.

Beginning to wonder if Germany might reconsider Snowden's asylum. Would send quite a stark message, and I do think a national thank you for exposing the disgraceful surveillance of an ally's head of stated is well in order.

Oooops, Im long ranting again. I'll stop.

This stuff annoys me. America is supposed to be the good guys. :(

I was a Soldier, I've never had to shoot anyone, but I strongly agree with this. I am 95% sure that I could shoot someone if my life depended on it, but I'm 1000% sure that I would have absolutely no problems launching a missile from a drone, while I'm safely located 1000s of miles away. Hell, video-games are one of the few things I've ever been talented at.

Now, just to clarify, I would have problems if it meant that innocent people would get caught in the blast, I was purely focused on the issue of killing someone that meant to do me or any other innocent person harm.

I also agree that its far too easy for a commander/politician to order a drone strike. Often, when the military decides not to take a particular action, its because the commander doesn't want to be responsible for sending a Soldier off to die. With drone strikes, the possibility of this happening is eliminated.

While I feel that our drone program is out of control, I also feel that it could be reigned in and used in a way that's both productive and ethical. We need to place a priority on preserving innocent life, even if it is difficult. If Soldiers are on the ground, in a fire-fight, its arguable that saving their lives may involve the loss of innocent lives. That's a sad reality of war. However, when the aforementioned Soldiers are sitting in an air-conditioned building, there is no ethical dilemma that could possibly justify collateral damage. We need to reign in the drone strike program, and reserve its use for the rare opportunities where we can take out a high value target without killing innocent people.

I'm not so sure. That's probably true all things held equal, but that doesn't mean being a drone operator is any easier than being a ground soldier, psychologically.

My dad was a Marine. He was a combat engineer rather than an infantryman, but he saw his share of combat in three wars and while he absolutely hated killing people, the only way he could live with it was through the knowledge that in a combat situation, it's either you or them. That's emphatically not true for some specialties, like snipers and drone operators, and even seasoned combat veterans struggle with the moral weight of killing people without being in any danger themselves. Being in a firefight is hell but at least it feels like you're just trying to survive. Being a sniper or a drone pilot feels like you're just murdering people who pose no immediate threat to you. It's a tough thing to deal with.

It's also totally possible Bin Laden did hold up his hands. None of the points you are making really have anything to do with drones.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-08/psychologic...

partial quote: "The dazzling clarity of the drone's optics does have a downside. As a B-1 pilot, Dan wouldn't learn details about the effects of his weapons until a post-mission briefing. But flying a drone, he sees the carnage close-up, in real time—the blood and severed body parts, the arrival of emergency responders, the anguish of friends and family. Often he's been watching the people he kills for a long time before pulling the trigger. Drone pilots become familiar with their victims. They see them in the ordinary rhythms of their lives—with their wives and friends, with their children. War by remote control turns out to be intimate and disturbing. Pilots are sometimes shaken."

In other words: similar:yes, same:no.

I agree wholeheartedly. It's good for people in the west to read stories like this from the front lines and realise the moral ambiguities and atrocities which are inevitable in wartime. If you don't like this, do something about it, and vote against any politician who proposes to continue it, because in many cases our taxes are paying for it. The UK and Germany also host drone bases used in this expanding war.

I don't agree that drones are just like any other tools of war though. There are a few important differences from say cruise missiles or artillery - they are capable of stand-off surveillance for hours before and after strikes. They don't require warships or other platforms in the theatre of war, just an air base which could be several countries away and controllers who can be a world away. Also, importantly, many of them are tasked on missions directly controlled by the President or CIA (not this operator though). I think that has changed the way this administration looks at war and made Obama a very direct military leader.

Prior to drones, it was far harder for President Obama to order a strike in say Pakistan or Yemen, based on what his intelligence handlers tell him is a terrorist, and be sure of hitting targets moving on the ground so precisely, with visual footage before and after. Because they give a feeling of omnipotence over low-tech adversaries, even if the footage is blurry and the intelligence scarily incomplete, it will be tempting to use them more and more for surveilling and attacking as one operation, in any country in the world, without really having permission or a war ongoing. It will also be tempting to use them on civilian targets like houses or groups of people in ordinary life. That's a distinct change from previous engagements which if they killed civilians were far less targeted.

Drones, and this administration's use of them, have blurred the boundaries between war and peace, and of war itself, until it seems the world is viewed as a battlefield, and the war is an eternal one against enemies who look like civilians. There hasn't even been a formal declaration of war, and pre-crime assassination has been adopted as a tool of war. That is a huge change in how we view war, partly brought about by drones and partly by the nature of the enemy the US is trying to face down in this asymmetric war.

It doesn't make it any less real, but it does make it more cowardly.

Some of the commenters on this thread sound like the people who would throw things at veterans returning from vietnam. Have we learned nothing?

Yes we have learned something: it didn't happen.

I strongly object to the last few wars both Europe and the US has been involved in, to our foreign policy and to a lot of the policies that surround these conflicts. I still think a comment about "cowardly" tactics and strategies are unwarranted. Bravery is indeed a virtue, but in deadly conflict there isn't really such a thing as "fighting cowardly". There's cautious, callous, heinous, smart and stupid -- but not really cowardly.

It's a little like a front page story a few years back in Norway, when some Norwegian troops stationed in Afghanistan were interviewed, and called the insurgents IED-tactics "cowardly". Said with a straight face by someone that had the latest equipment, aerial and satellite surveillance, areal and modern artillery support, sniper support, body armour, armoured vehicles, night vision and all other trappings of modern warfare -- fighting poorly equipped peasants that are subject to night raids where parts of entire families are boxed up and shipped across half the world never to be heard from again.

Now, I'm not saying that it wouldn't feel cowardly when one of these peasants injured or killed someone with a sneakily placed IED -- but it's just good tactics, it isn't really cowardly. I mean, there wouldn't be any more wars in these areas if the local people tried to fight "fair" whatever that is supposed to mean.

Forgive me for putting the "human cost to the operator" a very distant second in my reckoning about this issue, ie dropping bombs on people, wiping out whole generations. This is killing people, do you understand? Dropping bombs and killing people. You know, I want it to be difficult.

> Drones don't kill innocent non-combatants, people do

Well it is exactly like guns, isn't it. Guns don't kill people, people do, but guns sure make it a hell of a lot easier. There is no nation on earth that looks at America's gun culture and thinks "that is a good idea!". Same with military drones.

Drones aren't only weapon like this, they aren't unique, but it's untrue to claim they are nothing different. They are an evolution of bombers and the effects on and reactions of pilots is strikingly similar to some carpet bomber crews of WWII and Vietnam Police action.

At its core, war starts with a society or their leaders deciding that yes, they want a goal X achieved even it will require dying and killing of innocent people, and that X is more important than their lives. If the decision is made, then it doesn't really matter how the killing is executed - the main moral issue is the choice of starting a war.

> asking if a child had just run directly into the path of their shot. “And he says, ‘Per the review, it’s a dog.’ ”

Its disgusting how casualties are being counted. Rather than own it up, and admit that both civilians and kids die in a war, they redefine children as dogs, and count all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.

This is absolute and complete horseshit.

I protest against war. I vote against war. I campaign for candidates who oppose war. I refuse to work for companies that profit from war. War happens anyway.

A soldier surveys his opportunities and realizes he can put money in his pocket from war. He votes for war. He makes fun of protesters. He fights the war. He freely spends lives and money.

Only a completely insane person would claim that the soldier and I are equally culpable. We just aren't. It's repulsive that you'd make such an ignorant and asinine assertion. I'd ask for your reasoning, but it's clear that you excluded your reasoning because there IS no valid, logical, sane underpinning to your argument.

And the comparison with Vietnam is absolutely fucking disgusting. Vietnam was a draft. Modern wars aren't fought by draftees, they're fought by low-talent assholes who think that shooting brown people sounds better than flipping burgers.

p.s. the vietnam vet spitting thing is an urban legend.

We're all responsible for the things done in our names,

Only a completely insane person would claim that the soldier and I are equally culpable.

The first statement does not imply the second.

We are all, to a greater or lesser degree, responsible for the actions of our government, and for the wars it prosecutes. You may feel powerless in your opposition to war, but if you feel outraged by that, spare some thought for those half a world away who have had their grandmother or other members of their family killed by a drone.

[EDIT - I see you've removed the reference to human filth now]

OP explicitly exempts people who voluntarily agree to fight wars for profit from blame for the wars. That is insane.

If you want to down vote me because I can't pretend to respect that sort of bullshit, that's fine; I hope it made you feel powerful to click a button and tell me off.

Oh go fuck yourself. I saw an utterly garbage argument, I responded quickly, then I edited it because my first draft had unhelpful content. "stealth edit" implies a perniciousness that simply wasn't present.

> I don't think you should insult or speculate on the character and profession of other posters

And I think that if somebody says that soldiers have no blame for war, that they're idiots, and it's ludicrous to pretend respect for them.

The general etiquette seems to be to put an "EDIT: " with either an addendum or an explanation of edits you made within your comment.

There is no implied perniciousness or anything, it's called that because you are effectively changing what people have responded to after their response.

It's sometimes frustrating when you've just realized that you've made a bit of a fool of yourself in the heat of the moment (or in your non-idomatic use of English, and come off as more of an ass-hole (or just more rude) than you might have intended, as might be the case for those of us whose native language isn't English...) -- and then having to explicitly acknowledge in a "edit: whoops, didn't mean to be offensive, sorry"-comment that you did in fact post something a little foolish, rude or just silly.

But, with the high rate of view/replies to some hn-threads, it's better to be safe than sorry, and add a small "edit:"-comment whenever you edit -- even if it's just formatting, grammar or spelling.

This is not a help.