tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post9165615103432643011..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: The ethics of drone warfareUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-66377265297770085882013-11-23T01:53:38.515-05:002013-11-23T01:53:38.515-05:001) the argument that drones strikes are immoral be...1) the argument that drones strikes are immoral because it removes the people carrying out an attack from harms way can be applied (to differing degrees) to every military advancement from the spear onward. The underlying objections are the same: that it make war easier, more sanitized, etc. If we're not going to give up guns (let alone, artillery, missiles, bombs) then I don't think there's a way to reason from this argument to morally give up drones.<br /><br />2) The argument that it is immoral because it makes it easier for political leaders to enter into wars due to the reduced domestic cost may be true. However the same argument as above applies. Every military advancement since people attacked each other with bare hands face to face does this. (again it's all simply a matter of degrees).<br /><br />3) The arguments about blow-back seem to me to be about the ultimate effectiveness of the policy not the ethics.<br /><br />I think a true moral question regarding drones (discounting the overall moral question of war itself) regards the effect of the existence of them constantly flying in the skies above (and how they are perceived by) the population below.<br /><br />I believe that the drones are actually waging two wars. The first is the officially recognized war against the terrorists:<br />We've talked about the strikes themselves: % of civilians killed, etc. We've talked about how the terrorists are disrupted and must hide due to the constant surveillance and threat from the skies.<br /><br />However, we haven't heard about what I would describe as the second war. Which is, perhaps an unintended war, against the actual population of the country. It's a psychological war. It could be described as a war of terror. The message: don't do a set of select activities (the specifics of which we won't share with you) or we will kill you, without you first having any recourse to justice or legal appeal.<br /><br />This is the part of drone warfare that I believe is immoral. What right does a foreign power have to put a population under constant threat of random death? (i.e. if it's in error)<br />-In this way, I don't believe you can compare aerial bombing where the arguments only look at the act of the bombing itself not the ubiquitous nature of the threat on the mindset of the population.<br />A rebuttal to this could be that the US has the co-operation and permission of the Yemini or Pakistani governments. So what? If that is the case is it morally okay for the US government to support the terrorizing of a foreign population by it's own government?<br />The only time one could say this is not the case, and that the drones were just there waging a war against the terrorists, is if the people beneath them would look up (or hear them in the sky) and feel safer knowing they were up there.<br /><br />To look at it through a race or class-based analogy: maybe a white person (or rich person) sees a cop-car and feels safe and protected, while someone of color (or in poverty) sees it and doesn't.<br />They don't feel safe because, while they're probably not criminals themselves, they know they are part of the population which is under constant scrutiny and that they have to deal with the outcome of the policies that target the criminals. <br />For example: stop and frisk. Maybe more criminals are caught and crime is deterred, however the side effect of it is that an entire population is living with racial profiling, etc. Is this morally okay?<br />You could talk about all the good side effects of the policy of stop and frisk, and that even less people of color are victims of crime now as well, etc, etc. But that doesn't actually answer the question of whether it is morally right to racially profile an entire population of people as potential criminals and all the injustice that follows from that.<br /><br />This is where I believe drone warfare fails the moral argument. Does the benefactor of asymmetric power have the moral right to surveil and terrorize a population (that it is not at war with) with possible death - indefinitely?<br /><br />I believe the answer is no.ferandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04458542455398359668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8734259937901533862012-10-06T23:35:44.035-04:002012-10-06T23:35:44.035-04:00Something of a stealth weapon, more accurate than ...Something of a stealth weapon, more accurate than hand-drawn longbow and less noisy than a firearm. It could penetrate armor and be useful as an anti-knight weapon.<br /><br />Oh wait....thats why crossbows were banned by the church.lordjakianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09157422179169906126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-36427714083731056512012-01-20T13:21:44.665-05:002012-01-20T13:21:44.665-05:00One ethically you can not make a good judgement ab...One ethically you can not make a good judgement about civilian casualties with regard to drones as they are typically pushed under the aegis of government secrecy, technically we have only the government's own reassurances about how accurate or inaccurate they are, in other words no independent verification about how good or bad they really are.<br /><br />Two as others have pointed out a drone is different because it removes even the possibility of fatality, assault rifles, missiles, all technically still put people in danger, the drone does not when it comes to warfare, only the people it attacks.<br /><br />Three and this is somewhat linked to the technological separation from ecology which seems to make people ignore environmental problems, is that it tends to differ judgement until it reaches crisis levels. To use a analogy of the environment in the world today one of the primary problems we face is that our technology has allowed us to ignore some of the smaller environmental problems we face, however this is only up till the point that the collection of those smaller environmental problems accumulate to the point where our technology no longer can face the big problems when really it would have made more sense to face the smaller ones first. Drone warfare problematically means differed judgement, we convince ourselves it is not a problem because of the lack of our own casualties, but the reality is that they are creating civilian casualties and without knowing what those casualties are, they build up and build up, creating more and more little problems,how long before its a big problem actually requiring troop input or leading to larger attacks on our own soil?, and all this bearing in mind under the aegis of secrecy so we never really know what our nation is actually getting into.<br /><br />Four is to me a problem of removing humans from the war fighting equation, we need to have costs imposed on us from warfare, in America though we have increasingly done everything we can to not have those costs at all and instead imposed on someone else. People say they care about the troops but in reality what cost do they take, the troops do in the form of fatalities and bodily damage, but what does the nation, and the elites what price do they pay? The drone warfare is linked to this, a preference to one eliminate cost and two place whatever cost there is on something else. We have a drone do our fighting for us, and next we have robots doing it in the field, and eventually where is the cost to us? Once we were on the brink of nuclear war, a war that would have been won(if you can say it could have been won) by pushing a button, and ten minutes later your adversaries are vaporized. I guess my question is that how long before we can slip to easily into a war, and so as a consequence we never really see the precipice of annihilation until it is too late?Mariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16212544390177299243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-21655615600169587712011-12-21T16:39:29.427-05:002011-12-21T16:39:29.427-05:00erin, if you're concerned about nuclear escala...erin, if you're concerned about nuclear escalation and proliferation, you should thank your lucky stars for national technical means of verification.<br /><br />When Iran announced that it brought down the American stealth drone, Francis Gary Powers Jr., son of the late U-2 pilot, remarked, "When I first heard about the drone, my first thought was thank goodness there wasn't a pilot in it."<br /><br />And again, how are drone strikes any worse than manned strikes? It wasn't a CIA drone that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers on November 26, but manned NATO gunships.Maxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12483245818327188536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-32749975929712445622011-12-10T01:32:38.648-05:002011-12-10T01:32:38.648-05:00Another upsetting point to drone warfare is their ...Another upsetting point to drone warfare is their surveillance capabilities. It is wron to me that the US is remotely policing foreign territories. I can only imagine this escalating in the same sense that nuclear warfare has. Would America stand for it's skies being monitored by Pakistan? Would Americans stand for 500 of its own civilians being accidentally killed? <br /><br />Certainly not.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13245298438992720647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40903320962506443102011-11-29T17:33:42.927-05:002011-11-29T17:33:42.927-05:00Daniel,
sorry, I feel no sympathy whatsoever for ...Daniel,<br /><br />sorry, I feel no sympathy whatsoever for people who kill at a distance as if they were playing video games.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-32977531693166389342011-11-29T17:30:32.483-05:002011-11-29T17:30:32.483-05:00http://touch.slate.com/slate/#!/entry/do-remotecon...http://touch.slate.com/slate/#!/entry/do-remotecontrol-war-pilots-get-combat-stress,4e9c4abfdd5ab4464d001370<br /><br />The idea that drone pilots are protected from the miseries of war is misguided, this article is one of many which detail the human cost to the individual holding the joystick.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515543926672002412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10727043707298012552011-10-21T02:35:30.745-04:002011-10-21T02:35:30.745-04:00To call it drone warfare is wrong, since in realit...To call it drone warfare is wrong, since in reality, it is a drone hunt. War is when two parties are involved in the fight against each other and present in the war field. Although it is true that planes, rockets, tanks, bombs and other weapons have already dehumanized warfare for a long time, drone attack further desensitizes act of war in a fundamental way.Be Truehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18039110114364661087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-65375864324965101222011-10-02T07:52:10.050-04:002011-10-02T07:52:10.050-04:00Good timing. On September 30, a drone strike kille...Good timing. On September 30, a drone strike killed Anwar al-Awlaki, propagandist Samir Khan, and possibly the chief bomb-maker Ibrahim al-Asiri, after monitoring al-Awlaki for weeks. In case the drone missed, jump jets and special forces were ready to finish the job.<br /><br />Several days later, on October 2, a manned Yemeni jet mistakenly bombed a Yemeni army position, killing at least 30 soldiers. So tell me again how drones are inherently problematic compared to manned jets.Maxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12483245818327188536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89205637514885852672011-09-28T13:47:44.722-04:002011-09-28T13:47:44.722-04:00Just ran across a new essay from Ralph Nader in wh...Just ran across a new essay from Ralph Nader in which he argues that drones are inherently problematic:<br /><br />http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/26-15Michael De Dorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16054469707295070655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-81823173931961433402011-09-15T00:10:58.234-04:002011-09-15T00:10:58.234-04:00Drones and other types of persistent surveillance ...Drones and other types of persistent surveillance make war MORE personal, since high value targets can be observed in higher resolution and tracked for hours and days. Missiles are getting smaller and more precise, so they can be put through a bedroom window, after a lawyer signs off on the attack. Contrast that with old fashioned carpet bombing and artillery barrages.<br /><br />Troops in harm's way are more eager to shoot and get out of harm's way, as seen in the helicopter gunship video published by Wikileaks. And when troops are harmed, their buddies may seek revenge.<br /><br />Here's hoping that future wars will be drones versus drones, or better yet, virtually simulated.Maxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12483245818327188536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-73153138231682331992011-09-14T23:20:52.374-04:002011-09-14T23:20:52.374-04:00This is really the stuff of parody. The basic the...This is really the stuff of parody. The basic thesis is that, once we've decided that our cause is just and the official enemy of the day merits no more consideration than a pest control problem, the only thing left to ponder is the economics of extermination.<br /><br />Of course, once we've done that, we shouldn't be surprised to find that we're left with a puzzle. What, after all, could be wrong with hiring the cheapest and most effective exterminator to solve our bug problem? As Eamon helpfully instructs us, we're focusing only on the morality of the specific use of drones. And we're going to do so in such a way as to cleanse our question of any moral dimensions. And viola, a riddle is born.<br /><br />Don't confuse questions of practical reason with questions of moral cogency. They're different issues.<br /><br />To the point, though, drones are being attacked, first, becuase they are the current weapon of choice, and second, because they are being intentionally deployed to evade issues of sovereignty, legality, due process, symmetry, and the like when one employs an actual army, as distinct from a toy of the CIA, with its total lack of transparency, due process, and the rest. There are other reasons that drones don't sit well with elite commentators--like the fact that their use exposes the basic war narrative--brave heroes protecting us from immediate danger--for the obvious fraud that it is. The critiques that come out, as usual, tend to evade the basic issues, distracting us with extraneous details and debates between the various cheerleading factions. Predictable and shameful.Blinn Combshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17851019534266952885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90020801637904625832011-09-14T15:42:52.363-04:002011-09-14T15:42:52.363-04:00@Baron P,
Then by all means tell me what your ar...@Baron P, <br /><br />Then by all means tell me what your argument is.Mark Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12604074895219791713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39206336018959641122011-09-13T22:18:00.265-04:002011-09-13T22:18:00.265-04:00@NShooter
"it may be" isn't helpful....@NShooter<br />"it may be" isn't helpful. If you think a drone strike could be more moral than not striking, then make that argument.<br /><br />I would except that obviously wasn't my argument.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3826288904599471012011-09-13T12:06:07.328-04:002011-09-13T12:06:07.328-04:00@BaronP
"it may be" isn't helpful. ...@BaronP<br /><br />"it may be" isn't helpful. If you think a drone strike could be more moral than not striking, then make that argument. Be sure to address the likelihood of civilian causalities, the reliability and accuracy of targeting information, and the evaluation of the prediction that the negative consequences of not killing a target will outweigh the negative consequences of killing the target.Mark Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12604074895219791713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-34851522230800512642011-09-12T18:17:00.194-04:002011-09-12T18:17:00.194-04:00i don't think the difference between "ass...i don't think the difference between "assume the war is just" and "assume the war is neither just nor unjust" is all that great (certainly not "VERY MUCH"). and really, i'd submit that the former is probably better in function as it doesn't require you to assume something impossible to continue the discussion.<br /><br />and just in case i was confused as to weather you were trying to nit-pick the irrelevancies of Eamon's comment to avoid addressing its substance in good faith, your punch line clarified things quite well.<br /><br />thanks?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-25721459607533058542011-09-12T01:48:42.283-04:002011-09-12T01:48:42.283-04:00Eamon ... putting just war issues aside is VERY MU...Eamon ... putting just war issues aside is VERY MUCH NOT the same thing as assuming a war is just.<br /><br />Good effing doorknob, I think you just moved the Overton window into a different zip code with that sleight of mind.<br /><br />Putting just war arguments aside means assuming a war is **neither just nor unjust.** <br /><br />It's called logic; give it a spin sometime.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-36808223135915453372011-09-11T18:19:02.942-04:002011-09-11T18:19:02.942-04:00Atheistspitfire has it right re: the ethics of dis...Atheistspitfire has it right re: the ethics of distancing. If a method of killing increases psychological distance, and your ethical issue is that such methods therefore encourage lazy decision making with respect to the employment of violence, you've just subtly switched the conversation from drones back to just war theory.<br /><br />i.e. Hector nailed it, first post: in the case of drones, it's a bit of a non-issue.<br /><br />I'd say he stretched "non-issue" too far when he applied it to ground troops, however. The (unmentioned) enormous significance attached to ground troops is their ability to "own" land. Only ground troops do this, and they do it as a necessary consequence of their presence. Even if you intend to recall them quickly, they own the land they're on for as long as they're on it. I don't think this significance will ever be obsolete.<br /><br />@SimonSays: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_combat_air_vehicle#ProliferationAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11446920672359715402011-09-10T15:45:14.267-04:002011-09-10T15:45:14.267-04:00Drones are just a technical possibility for making...Drones are just a technical possibility for making war, which is wrong per se. They help to make war more abstract than before. Maybe you kill less people, but you can make war easier, since you can make fuzzier arguments when things become more abstract. And you can keep a good dose of terror, not to mention that from the point of view of the one that owns the techonology, can make a better war, with a lower cost of lifes. Ultimately, what it could help to avoid war, it makes it easier to happen. Agreements between countries do not avoid killing innocents, and the use of drones facilitates agreements between countries, since in principle they are more chirurgic and more efficient. If you put this in the context of ""war agains terror"", abstract enough by itself, you see how well they fit to each other. <br />Less personal implication in war makes also war easier for oneself, and for war itself to happen.Oscarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04360507492938258763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-7049826643113056472011-09-10T15:17:46.241-04:002011-09-10T15:17:46.241-04:00@Michael De Dora,
"Imagine being able to carr...@Michael De Dora,<br />"Imagine being able to carry out attacks on highly dangerous terrorists and counter-insurgents without having to put your own people at risk of death. This would seem desirable."<br />Desirable perhaps but not realistically possible. 'You kill one of mine and if possible I'll kill two of yours' is the more likely rule that wars are designed to follow. <br />And if civilians can be killed to best effect that rule, they will be. All ethical considerations in war in that respect are tactical, since war by definition is inherently unethical.<br />@Norwegian Shooter,<br />"However, I don't see how an indescriminant missile fired at a civilian building can ever be moral."<br />In terms of relative morality, it may be the most moral thing in war that one could do.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50560332957018721812011-09-10T03:27:27.747-04:002011-09-10T03:27:27.747-04:00"If an act of war kills civilians, one must p..."If an act of war kills civilians, one must parse whether civilians were intentionally or knowingly put at risk, or whether it was an issue of collateral damage."<br /><br />This statement shows how little you understand the topic. Anytime a civilian dies, it is collateral damage. But this is just a PR term. International humanitarian law (the laws of war) contain the categories of proportionality, military necessity and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_(law)" rel="nofollow">distinction</a>. (other two are linked). <br /><br />There is a legitimate debate to be had on the legality of any particular drone strike. However, I don't see how an indescriminant missile fired at a civilian building can ever be moral.Mark Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12604074895219791713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-21316559390522567202011-09-10T03:26:59.725-04:002011-09-10T03:26:59.725-04:00Michael, your last argument, that it makes war too...Michael, your last argument, that it makes war too easy, is perhaps the best. You're too young to have seen it, unless in reruns, but, the original Star Trek had an episode about an interplanetary war that had been going on centuries, precisely because the attacks were computer simulations, albeit with actual casualties that each planet was bound by "Treaty" to inflict upon itself. Kirk deliberately destroyed the computers on one planet to force them to face the messiness of "real" war.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-27480097165354911932011-09-09T21:14:08.961-04:002011-09-09T21:14:08.961-04:00The statement was made, "The problem lies in ...The statement was made, "The problem lies in the ease with which operators can detach themselves from the moral dimensions of their activity." which ties neatly into the author's comment, "Warfare made easier means warfare more often."<br /><br />If only warfare had a more personal, direct impact as it did a couple of centuries ago - George Washington actually went into battle after all, did he not? - perhaps the "suits" would be less inclined to so impulsively deploy troops.<br /><br />Maybe war isn't gritty, ugly and reprehensible enough for the right people. Our representatives are too far removed from the havoc they wreak. Maybe the only people eligible for Congress should be those who've either themselves served or have immediate family members who have been or are currently in military service.<br /><br />Ethically, there seems to be little different, but I do believe that drones only serve to further remove decision-makers from the sickening realities of their whims.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02101289328294242999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-4158190266030492052011-09-09T20:06:32.279-04:002011-09-09T20:06:32.279-04:00It is my impression that the "moral dilemma&q...It is my impression that the "moral dilemma" occurs in those who perceive that war needs valor in the heroic soldiers who participate. The removal of the drone operator to the safety of a foreign country's command center negates any risking of life and thus any valor or heroics in their military actions. War is simplified to simple cost effective killing. No heroes to honor, no soldiers to reward. <br /><br />The moral/ethical issue here is simply: <br />Can you justify killing people?<br />The method is not important.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14151796353141889687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39249620024176201312011-09-09T14:02:36.234-04:002011-09-09T14:02:36.234-04:00Eamon,
BS on claiming emotionalism hurts debates ...Eamon,<br /><br />BS on claiming emotionalism hurts debates in general and also on the term's use to describe my comment.<br /><br />As to an actual point you make, claiming my argument is a non sequitur, that is ridiculous. I don't even make any extended arguments where a particular step might not follow from its antecedents.<br /><br />My entire point was to reject Micheal's limited consideration of only how the weapons are fired in a discussion about the ethics of drones.<br /><br />Mark EricksonMark Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12604074895219791713noreply@blogger.com