Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

What the fuck? Citations please? There is absolutely no reason I can see to beleive that every person we kill with drones had any plan (realistic or otherwise) to attack us? Where do you get this? Because of Obama's reclassification of male casualties between 16-65 as combatants? Is that kind of word-game nonsense really so effective?

There are of course collateral casualties, but I do believe every drone strike has a target that has expressed some intention to attack the U.S. We're not blowing up random Afghans for fun.

Actually, American drone attacks have a pretty miserably bad civilian:militant casualty ratio. Not that anyone has ever achieved a ratio sufficient in a fight against terrorist/guerrilla enemies to satisfy the bleeding-heart types, even when it's actually less than 1.0 (that is, fewer civilians than militants are killed or injured).

You have a lot of faith in a military which has done a lot of measurable harm in recent times for little measurable gain.

So the alternative is to use napalm strikes? Drones are way, way, way more targeted than bombing a whole area.

No, the alternative would be to stop killing people. We've had one big terrorist attack about once every 10 years. It's not worth murdering innocents over.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact