Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
NGrossman81's profile
Nicholas Grossman
Nicholas Grossman
Nicholas Grossman
@NGrossman81

Tweets

Nicholas Grossman

@NGrossman81

International Relations prof at U. Illinois. Senior Editor @ArcDigi. Author “Drones and Terrorism.” Politics, national security, and occasional nerdery.

amazon.com/Drones-Terrori…
Joined April 2015

Tweets

  • © 2018 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    Nicholas Grossman‏ @NGrossman81 Sep 26

    Nicholas Grossman Retweeted Chris Murphy

    Sen. Murphy is incorrect. "Drone strikes create more enemies than they kill" might make sense in the abstract, but it's not supported by the available evidence. If no longer trying to kill terrorists would make terrorist groups go away, the problem would be simple. But it isn't.https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1044649325849186305 …

    Nicholas Grossman added,

    Chris MurphyVerified account @ChrisMurphyCT
    US Senate candidate, CT
    7/ Curtail secret wars. CIA/NSA should be in the biz of intelligence, not covert war making. Drone strikes are perfect example of a practice that makes us feel good, but w/o public scrutiny, often creates more enemies than it kills.
    Show this thread
    8:41 AM - 26 Sep 2018 from Urbana, IL
    • 2 Likes
    • Rupert Barker 🌐 W. Ellen Fleischmann
    3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
      1. Nicholas Grossman‏ @NGrossman81 Sep 26

        As I explain in this article--adapted from my book, "Drones and Terrorism"--we must compare drone strikes to available alternatives. They disrupt terrorist operations, communication, and recruitment. Downsides too. But not as simple as @ChrisMurphyCT says.https://arcdigital.media/are-drone-strikes-moral-is-the-wrong-question-98e81ae2f343?source=friends_link&sk=fe6c7ed4925e646ec6474abcd4cccfab …

        1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes
        Show this thread
        Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
        Undo
      1. New conversation
      2. Jamie Crossota‏ @market4neolib Sep 26
        Replying to @NGrossman81

        That's not a fair representation of Murphy's claims. You left out the qualifier "often" and he's saying that secrecy creates enemies, not drone strikes per se.

        1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      3. Nicholas Grossman‏ @NGrossman81 Sep 26
        Replying to @market4neolib

        "Often" is a dodge. To evaluate policy, have to judge effort as a whole. No one disputes that better intel/accuracy is better. Less secrecy on drone strikes arguably good for US democracy. But I'm skeptical that more openness would alter how many terrorists such strikes "create."

        1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      4. Jamie Crossota‏ @market4neolib Sep 26
        Replying to @NGrossman81

        He said secrecy creates "enemies" not terrorists. I don't disagree much with your points, but they're not responsive enough to Murphy's tweet.

        1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      5. Nicholas Grossman‏ @NGrossman81 Sep 26
        Replying to @market4neolib

        That's a fair point. I interpreted "enemies" specifically as "terrorists." Enemy is a harsh word--rare to see it refer to, say, non-allied countries growing less supportive. But your broader interpretation isn't unreasonable. Let's chalk this up to nuance deficiencies of Twitter

        1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      6. Jamie Crossota‏ @market4neolib Sep 26
        Replying to @NGrossman81

        Works for me. It could be that I'm reading into Murphy's tweet my own POV, which would also be a problem.

        2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
      7. Nicholas Grossman‏ @NGrossman81 Sep 26
        Replying to @market4neolib

        Possible. If his foreign policy ideas gain more traction, he'll explain in greater detail and I'll judge accordingly. I commented because I want to counter the conventional wisdom in some circles that drone strikes create more terrorists than they kill, which he at least implied.

        0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
      8. End of conversation
      1. New conversation
      2. padraig o'riordan‏ @patreardon68 Sep 26
        Replying to @NGrossman81

        I challenge your 'theory' based on first hand information. My time in Iraq showed that air strikes from any source caused nothing but resentment from native peoples. No explanation, no compassion created mistrust. I am curious in which theater you formulated your opinion.

        1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      3. Nicholas Grossman‏ @NGrossman81 Sep 26
        Replying to @patreardon68

        1) "Air strikes from any source" indicates you agree that strikes from drones do not cause a fundamentally different reaction than killing by other means. 2) I definitely do not say they're costless. 3) My focus is on strikes outside of official combat theaters (Pakistan, Yemen).

        1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      4. padraig o'riordan‏ @patreardon68 Sep 26
        Replying to @NGrossman81

        The cost to International relationships utilizing unilateral lethal force inside of sovereign territories is a lose-lose. The physical and emotional damage done is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Any event utilizing a drone could be accomplished with SF and Intel.

        1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      5. Nicholas Grossman‏ @NGrossman81 Sep 26
        Replying to @patreardon68

        Not necessarily. SF and intel is high ceiling/low floor. When it goes well, you get the bin Laden raid. When it goes badly, you get Mogadishu 1993.

        1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      6. padraig o'riordan‏ @patreardon68 Sep 26
        Replying to @NGrossman81

        I would propose that Mogadishu was a failure caused by Congressional spending stupidity, not Intel failure. When field teams are empowered and allowed to utilize localized Intel, results are both cleaner and more acceptable to locals.

        1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      7. Nicholas Grossman‏ @NGrossman81 Sep 26
        Replying to @patreardon68

        Specifics matter in every case, no doubt. My general point is introducing ground forces creates both higher risk and potentially higher reward than strike from distance. For example: Jan 17 Yemen raid mixed results. 1 US death, 20+ civilians, killed Qaeda fighters, acquired intel

        1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      8. padraig o'riordan‏ @patreardon68 Sep 26
        Replying to @NGrossman81

        From first hand experience, I find the Intel is rarely timely enough to prevent unacceptable civilian casualties from remote vehicle strikes. No explanation can satisfy civilian population when remote strikes fail. Local Intel becomes less reliable with every failure.

        0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
      9. End of conversation

    Loading seems to be taking a while.

    Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

      Promoted Tweet

      false

      • © 2018 Twitter
      • About
      • Help Center
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Cookies
      • Ads info