Comment by xyzelement
2 years ago
What part of this upsets you vs a baseline understanding of reality?
There's often a criticism of the US military doctrine that our weapons are great but are often way more expensive than the thing we shoot them at (as exemplified in our engagement with the Houthis in the Red Sea.)
If anything, the quote you pulled sounds like its talking about highly precise weaponry, and it seems to me that the way to minimize the overall death in a war is to use your precise weapons to take out the most impactful enemy.
Which part of this is different than how you see the world so that reading this quote threw you?
Civilians aren't strategic targets like military decision-makers, but describing them as 'unimportant' is a sign of moral vacuity.
I know war isn't pretty, but I really didn't expect that openly displayed level of callousness. Saying 'we think these people should be dead, but they are not important enough to warrant our "good" bombs', to me, says a lot about the mentality of the people in charge of that military assault: those aren't human lives, those are items on a 'to kill' list, and they aren't surrounded by civilians, but 'acceptable collateral damage'.
I'll answer for the previous post. The most disturbing part is stating main criteria is being a male and their models have 10% error rate.
I don't think you're parsing the article correctly.
There is no allegation that the main criteria for the algorithm is "being male."
The allegation is that the human double-checking of the algorithm confirms the target is male (as opposed to woman/child.)
Not sure what the difference is given the end result?
1 reply →