LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

The optics of no free school meals over holidays but yes to big war space rockets are....interesting

Isn't it consistent with your infrastructure spending argument though?

Will be interesting if it goes towards cyber defence. That's arguably where it should be going.

Not really.

I’m just pro - counter cyclical spending.

Why is this 4 year deal not counter-cyclical?

What do you think the target rate of growth should be?

rick_chasey

No idea. Stick to the inflation target but use fiscal policy to help get there.

morstar

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

The optics of no free school meals over holidays but yes to big war space rockets are....interesting

Isn't it consistent with your infrastructure spending argument though?

Will be interesting if it goes towards cyber defence. That's arguably where it should be going.

Not really.

I’m just pro - counter cyclical spending.

So it is counter cyclical spending but it's not consistent with your support of counter cyclical spending.

You may have to show your workings.

rick_chasey

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

The optics of no free school meals over holidays but yes to big war space rockets are....interesting

Isn't it consistent with your infrastructure spending argument though?

Will be interesting if it goes towards cyber defence. That's arguably where it should be going.

Not really.

I’m just pro - counter cyclical spending.

So it is counter cyclical spending but it's not consistent with your support of counter cyclical spending.

You may have to show your workings.

I'm not necessarily against the defence spending. I think defence is quite important and I think the UK was/is drifting into a poor middle ground with an expensive yet ineffective force. There are different ways of going about running a strategy that looks after the nation and keeps obvious threats at bay, and some involve spending a lot.

I question the politics of refusing to extend free school meals to the holidays on one day and announcing a gigantic spend on guns the next.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

No idea. Stick to the inflation target but use fiscal policy to help get there.

So max non inflationary growth rate in UK is reckoned to be 3% so why not aim at that rather than the equally arbitrary target of greater than zero.

Do you count Brexit as cyclical? ie was the Govt right to spend money to avoid a Brexit recession?

Other than optics I see it as an utterly pointless waste of money so would be interested in hearing the reasons why (I presume) you think it was a good idea.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

No idea. Stick to the inflation target but use fiscal policy to help get there.

So max non inflationary growth rate in UK is reckoned to be 3% so why not aim at that rather than the equally arbitrary target of greater than zero.

Do you count Brexit as cyclical? ie was the Govt right to spend money to avoid a Brexit recession?

Other than optics I see it as an utterly pointless waste of money so would be interested in hearing the reasons why (I presume) you think it was a good idea.

I think inflation targets are a better measure for if the economy is too hot/cold.

I think a lot of the mechanisms in any western European government are counter cyclical by design anyway - you will spend more money propping people up on unemployment benefit etc in a downturn than an upturn - isn't that what has happened to Brexit?

Recessions or no growth is always scarring so i am in favour of propping that up whenever it happens - though it needs to be done in a way that avoids uncompetitive or zombie firm outcomes...

bompington

morstar said:

Will be interesting if it goes towards cyber defence. That's arguably where it should be going.

Here's a pretty downbeat article about what the forces do and don't need:
https://capx.co/the-war-in-nagorno-karabakh-has-big-lessons-for-the-british-army/

rick_chasey

bompington said:

morstar said:

Will be interesting if it goes towards cyber defence. That's arguably where it should be going.

Here's a pretty downbeat article about what the forces do and don't need:
https://capx.co/the-war-in-nagorno-karabakh-has-big-lessons-for-the-british-army/

Excellent article. Good spot.

morstar

bompington said:

morstar said:

Will be interesting if it goes towards cyber defence. That's arguably where it should be going.

Here's a pretty downbeat article about what the forces do and don't need:
https://capx.co/the-war-in-nagorno-karabakh-has-big-lessons-for-the-british-army/

Interesting stuff.
Personally, I’d put drones in the same class as chemical weapons and ban them.
De-sensitising war makes it far more acceptable. Reduces incentives to avoid it.

The idea of sitting thousands of miles away playing a video game with real people as targets is highly questionable from an ethical perspective.

pblakeney

War itself is highly questionable from an ethical perspective.

surrey_commuter

The £16bn seems to have become £24bn and it is to make us the foremost naval power in Europe.

Do we still hang traitors?

Pross

surrey_commuter said:

The £16bn seems to have become £24bn and it is to make us the foremost naval power in Europe.

Do we still hang traitors?

Gotta keep those French, Spanish and Icelandic fishermen out of our territorial waters.

Pross

morstar said:

bompington said:

morstar said:

Will be interesting if it goes towards cyber defence. That's arguably where it should be going.

Here's a pretty downbeat article about what the forces do and don't need:
https://capx.co/the-war-in-nagorno-karabakh-has-big-lessons-for-the-british-army/

Interesting stuff.
Personally, I’d put drones in the same class as chemical weapons and ban them.
De-sensitising war makes it far more acceptable. Reduces incentives to avoid it.

The idea of sitting thousands of miles away playing a video game with real people as targets is highly questionable from an ethical perspective.

Surely it's better, if for some reason it has been decided a person or people are a threat and have to be killed, that it is done with a drone that can launch a precision strike? It's arguably "better" than carpet bombing , laying landmines, IEDs etc. etc.

TheBigBean

Pross said:

morstar said:

bompington said:

morstar said:

Will be interesting if it goes towards cyber defence. That's arguably where it should be going.

Here's a pretty downbeat article about what the forces do and don't need:
https://capx.co/the-war-in-nagorno-karabakh-has-big-lessons-for-the-british-army/

Interesting stuff.
Personally, I’d put drones in the same class as chemical weapons and ban them.
De-sensitising war makes it far more acceptable. Reduces incentives to avoid it.

The idea of sitting thousands of miles away playing a video game with real people as targets is highly questionable from an ethical perspective.

Surely it's better, if for some reason it has been decided a person or people are a threat and have to be killed, that it is done with a drone that can launch a precision strike? It's arguably "better" than carpet bombing , laying landmines, IEDs etc. etc.

How is it different from terrorism? In a war, unarmed people aren't usually targeted.

morstar

pblakeney said:

War itself is highly questionable from an ethical perspective.

Well yes. But I guess if you look at the natural tendency of humans to engage in conflict, a face to face battle is a simple to reconcile.
Choosing who to kill from a shipping container where the target has no knowledge of the attacks or opportunity to defend themselves is a very different prospect. I am not saying it is the only bad thing that goes on but I do think it oversteps an important threshold and sanitises killing.

briantrumpet

morstar said:

pblakeney said:

War itself is highly questionable from an ethical perspective.

Well yes. But I guess if you look at the natural tendency of humans to engage in conflict, a face to face battle is a simple to reconcile.
Choosing who to kill from a shipping container where the target has no knowledge of the attacks or opportunity to defend themselves is a very different prospect. I am not saying it is the only bad thing that goes on but I do think it oversteps an important threshold and sanitises killing.

I don't really see what the difference is from dropping lots of bombs from a plane way out of reach of the people on the ground to defend themselves.

morstar

Pross said:

morstar said:

bompington said:

morstar said:

Will be interesting if it goes towards cyber defence. That's arguably where it should be going.

Here's a pretty downbeat article about what the forces do and don't need:
https://capx.co/the-war-in-nagorno-karabakh-has-big-lessons-for-the-british-army/

Interesting stuff.
Personally, I’d put drones in the same class as chemical weapons and ban them.
De-sensitising war makes it far more acceptable. Reduces incentives to avoid it.

The idea of sitting thousands of miles away playing a video game with real people as targets is highly questionable from an ethical perspective.

Surely it's better, if for some reason it has been decided a person or people are a threat and have to be killed, that it is done with a drone that can launch a precision strike? It's arguably "better" than carpet bombing , laying landmines, IEDs etc. etc.

I agree it’s neat and easy. I’d say it’s use remains highly questionable.
It is far harder to justify air raids and goes through far more scrutiny.
Drones are quietly being used to carry out execution orders. It’s judge jury and executioner without scrutiny and no opportunity for defence.

My son is British forces FWIW. I am not a pacifist.

briantrumpet

morstar said:

Pross said:

morstar said:

bompington said:

morstar said:

Will be interesting if it goes towards cyber defence. That's arguably where it should be going.

Here's a pretty downbeat article about what the forces do and don't need:
https://capx.co/the-war-in-nagorno-karabakh-has-big-lessons-for-the-british-army/

Interesting stuff.
Personally, I’d put drones in the same class as chemical weapons and ban them.
De-sensitising war makes it far more acceptable. Reduces incentives to avoid it.

The idea of sitting thousands of miles away playing a video game with real people as targets is highly questionable from an ethical perspective.

Surely it's better, if for some reason it has been decided a person or people are a threat and have to be killed, that it is done with a drone that can launch a precision strike? It's arguably "better" than carpet bombing , laying landmines, IEDs etc. etc.

I agree it’s neat and easy. I’d say it’s use remains highly questionable.
It is far harder to justify air raids and goes through far more scrutiny.
Drones are quietly being used to carry out execution orders. It’s judge jury and executioner without scrutiny and no opportunity for defence.

My son is British forces FWIW. I am not a pacifist.

Pardon the pun, but it's a minefield once you start to debate the ethics of different means of killing people. Certain well-known companies employ engineers to design (for instance) landmines with some pretty specific (and horrific) specifications about how they kill and injure people. I suppose clever people will design these things in return for the money, but I'm not sure how they square that in their own heads.

morstar

I accept this is a sea of grey areas and invisible boundaries.

I just believe drones overstep one of these fuzzy boundaries.

It’s well documented that there are benefits in sanitising killing for the people who have to carry it out. A bomber pilot is removed from the carnage but not isolated from all risk in the same way a drone pilot is though.

Pross

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

morstar said:

bompington said:

morstar said:

Will be interesting if it goes towards cyber defence. That's arguably where it should be going.

Here's a pretty downbeat article about what the forces do and don't need:
https://capx.co/the-war-in-nagorno-karabakh-has-big-lessons-for-the-british-army/

Interesting stuff.
Personally, I’d put drones in the same class as chemical weapons and ban them.
De-sensitising war makes it far more acceptable. Reduces incentives to avoid it.

The idea of sitting thousands of miles away playing a video game with real people as targets is highly questionable from an ethical perspective.

Surely it's better, if for some reason it has been decided a person or people are a threat and have to be killed, that it is done with a drone that can launch a precision strike? It's arguably "better" than carpet bombing , laying landmines, IEDs etc. etc.

How is it different from terrorism? In a war, unarmed people aren't usually targeted.

It's not my decision process but I suspect those who are making the decision process would say the people pulling the strings put themselves in the firing line (literally in the case). Otherwise they can just send out the footsoldiers to die on their behalf without any risk.

I'm sure that historically the enemy leaders would have been assassinated whether armed or not had the opportunity been available. You don't have to go back very far in history to find examples of indiscriminant bombing of civilian areas.

As someone else pointed out there isn't really an ethical way of killing other people.

pblakeney

morstar said:

pblakeney said:

War itself is highly questionable from an ethical perspective.

Well yes. But I guess if you look at the natural tendency of humans to engage in conflict, a face to face battle is a simple to reconcile.
Choosing who to kill from a shipping container where the target has no knowledge of the attacks or opportunity to defend themselves is a very different prospect. I am not saying it is the only bad thing that goes on but I do think it oversteps an important threshold and sanitises killing.

Introducing ethics to war is futile as everyone has different ethics.
Nothing will ever be decided as "right". Except history written by the victor.

morstar

pblakeney said:

morstar said:

pblakeney said:

War itself is highly questionable from an ethical perspective.

Well yes. But I guess if you look at the natural tendency of humans to engage in conflict, a face to face battle is a simple to reconcile.
Choosing who to kill from a shipping container where the target has no knowledge of the attacks or opportunity to defend themselves is a very different prospect. I am not saying it is the only bad thing that goes on but I do think it oversteps an important threshold and sanitises killing.

Introducing ethics to war is futile as everyone has different ethics.
Nothing will ever be decided as "right". Except history written by the victor.

Not all killing is equal. That is already established with the concepts of War crimes, bans on chemical and biological weapons etc.
In civilian life we have a distinction between murder and manslaughter.

Many of the boundaries are very grey admittedly. I personally think drones are very problematic. At the moment, they are relatively new and used in isolation mainly (but not exclusively) in already active war zones.
However, I can envisage a time when we find ourselves wondering how on earth we let them become common place. When they are widely used by many nations with the capability of targeted executions anywhere and everywhere. A bit like the US gun situation where anybody looking from outside can easily see the insanity of the situation.

rick_chasey

I think they’ve banned autonomous war robots.

rjsterry

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

morstar said:

bompington said:

morstar said:

Will be interesting if it goes towards cyber defence. That's arguably where it should be going.

Here's a pretty downbeat article about what the forces do and don't need:
https://capx.co/the-war-in-nagorno-karabakh-has-big-lessons-for-the-british-army/

Interesting stuff.
Personally, I’d put drones in the same class as chemical weapons and ban them.
De-sensitising war makes it far more acceptable. Reduces incentives to avoid it.

The idea of sitting thousands of miles away playing a video game with real people as targets is highly questionable from an ethical perspective.

Surely it's better, if for some reason it has been decided a person or people are a threat and have to be killed, that it is done with a drone that can launch a precision strike? It's arguably "better" than carpet bombing , laying landmines, IEDs etc. etc.

How is it different from terrorism? In a war, unarmed people aren't usually targeted.

It's not my decision process but I suspect those who are making the decision process would say the people pulling the strings put themselves in the firing line (literally in the case). Otherwise they can just send out the footsoldiers to die on their behalf without any risk.

I'm sure that historically the enemy leaders would have been assassinated whether armed or not had the opportunity been available. You don't have to go back very far in history to find examples of indiscriminant bombing of civilian areas.

As someone else pointed out there isn't really an ethical way of killing other people.

Months rather than years. Syria and Yemen spring to mind.

I'm not sure I see a moral difference between there being a pilot in the cockpit or flying remotely.

morstar

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

morstar said:

bompington said:

morstar said:

Will be interesting if it goes towards cyber defence. That's arguably where it should be going.

Here's a pretty downbeat article about what the forces do and don't need:
https://capx.co/the-war-in-nagorno-karabakh-has-big-lessons-for-the-british-army/

Interesting stuff.
Personally, I’d put drones in the same class as chemical weapons and ban them.
De-sensitising war makes it far more acceptable. Reduces incentives to avoid it.

The idea of sitting thousands of miles away playing a video game with real people as targets is highly questionable from an ethical perspective.

Surely it's better, if for some reason it has been decided a person or people are a threat and have to be killed, that it is done with a drone that can launch a precision strike? It's arguably "better" than carpet bombing , laying landmines, IEDs etc. etc.

How is it different from terrorism? In a war, unarmed people aren't usually targeted.

It's not my decision process but I suspect those who are making the decision process would say the people pulling the strings put themselves in the firing line (literally in the case). Otherwise they can just send out the footsoldiers to die on their behalf without any risk.

I'm sure that historically the enemy leaders would have been assassinated whether armed or not had the opportunity been available. You don't have to go back very far in history to find examples of indiscriminant bombing of civilian areas.

As someone else pointed out there isn't really an ethical way of killing other people.

Months rather than years. Syria and Yemen spring to mind.

I'm not sure I see a moral difference between there being a pilot in the cockpit or flying remotely.

It’s a small distinction but one I believe is there.

The pilot faces risk that is calculated and contemplated by an extended network of interested parties.
A drone attack is sanitised with no potential consequences for the pilot.

It is only a small step but it is another step in the direction of sanitised and easier killing.

To the deceased, it makes zero difference. To the future likelihood of more deaths, my opinion is it makes a big difference. You’ve made killing easier and less risky so why not do more?

rjsterry

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

morstar said:

bompington said:

morstar said:

Will be interesting if it goes towards cyber defence. That's arguably where it should be going.

Here's a pretty downbeat article about what the forces do and don't need:
https://capx.co/the-war-in-nagorno-karabakh-has-big-lessons-for-the-british-army/

Interesting stuff.
Personally, I’d put drones in the same class as chemical weapons and ban them.
De-sensitising war makes it far more acceptable. Reduces incentives to avoid it.

The idea of sitting thousands of miles away playing a video game with real people as targets is highly questionable from an ethical perspective.

Surely it's better, if for some reason it has been decided a person or people are a threat and have to be killed, that it is done with a drone that can launch a precision strike? It's arguably "better" than carpet bombing , laying landmines, IEDs etc. etc.

How is it different from terrorism? In a war, unarmed people aren't usually targeted.

It's not my decision process but I suspect those who are making the decision process would say the people pulling the strings put themselves in the firing line (literally in the case). Otherwise they can just send out the footsoldiers to die on their behalf without any risk.

I'm sure that historically the enemy leaders would have been assassinated whether armed or not had the opportunity been available. You don't have to go back very far in history to find examples of indiscriminant bombing of civilian areas.

As someone else pointed out there isn't really an ethical way of killing other people.

Months rather than years. Syria and Yemen spring to mind.

I'm not sure I see a moral difference between there being a pilot in the cockpit or flying remotely.

It’s a small distinction but one I believe is there.

The pilot faces risk that is calculated and contemplated by an extended network of interested parties.
A drone attack is sanitised with no potential consequences for the pilot.

It is only a small step but it is another step in the direction of sanitised and easier killing.

To the deceased, it makes zero difference. To the future likelihood of more deaths, my opinion is it makes a big difference. You’ve made killing easier and less risky so why not do more?

I think the threshold is deciding that it is legitimate to preemptively kill your opponents. The people making those decisions have always been remote from the actual killing. Once over that threshold I think there's minimal difference in risk to the person actually pulling the trigger whether launching a cruise missile from a ship a few hundred miles away, bombing from high altitude, or piloting a drone. I also think don't think restricting the use of drones in favour of more face-to-face methods will reduce deaths. If anything it will increase them.

ballysmate

If I was in the military I wouldn't fancy a commander who given the option would rather put troops in harms way rather than technology. Just to make it more up close and personal.
It is war and nobody is interested in evening up the contest by introducing unnecessary risk.

Pross

Both of the above. The key decision is in deciding someone needs to be killed. If that is deemed "ethical" then doing it with the minimal risk to other lives seems sensible. The real question is whether the targets are a genuine threat to the safety of the country making the strike.

morstar

I agree completely with the practical arguments of why they’re preferable to a battle commander.

That’s why I think it is an issue that poses an ethical question to be looked at objectively along similar lines to those around chemical weapons.

rjsterry

At work is fine, though especially if it was 'unintentional'.

Also loving the transparently copy-and-pasted tweets in support of someone found to have broken the rules.