Is Robotic War Less Moral Than Past War Techniques?

[rhinefire]

Watching the VICE channel today the subject was robotics and their role in the present and future. As applied to war one opinion was peoples of the world hate us because of drone strikes with the logic being the victims have no warning and cannot strike back. I find that premise absurd because it is "war" and in war the goal is to destroy and kill. If one army had only knives then would it be immoral if the opposing army developed swords? Weren't bombers developed to kill from a distance instead of sending in armies? Weren't long rifles invented to reduce casualties caused by hand to hand? Weren't catapults developed hundreds of years ago to kill form a distance? Quote the film Patton,"The idea of war is not to die for your country but to make the other poor sonofabitch die for his". "All's fair in love and war".

 

[Brochacholomigo]

People don't hate us because our drones are robots, people hate us because our drones kill an inexcusable number of civilians.

U.S. Drone Policy: Standing Near Terrorists Makes You A Terrorist

 

[joG]

People don't hate us because our drones are robots, people hate us because our drones kill an inexcusable number of civilians.

Inexcusable or unexcused? But fewer civilians than conventional bombardment does, as far as I know. There is an issue there.

 

[joG]

Watching the VICE channel today the subject was robotics and their role in the present and future. As applied to war one opinion was peoples of the world hate us because of drone strikes with the logic being the victims have no warning and cannot strike back. I find that premise absurd because it is "war" and in war the goal is to destroy and kill. If one army had only knives then would it be immoral if the opposing army developed swords? Weren't bombers developed to kill from a distance instead of sending in armies? Weren't long rifles invented to reduce casualties caused by hand to hand? Weren't catapults developed hundreds of years ago to kill form a distance? Quote the film Patton,"The idea of war is not to die for your country but to make the other poor sonofabitch die for his". "All's fair in love and war".

Are we talking trying to reduce the impact on the feelings and resulting will to fight in the sense of finding the appropriate killing technology? Or is the question more like how close the killer must be to be considered moral? Or is it the collateral damage that we should worry about? etc.

All of those questions have different answers. So where to start?

 

[Brochacholomigo]

But fewer civilians than conventional bombardment does, as far as I know. There is an issue there.

And soldiers kill even fewer civilians. They also don't consider every male in a blast radius as a terrorist.

U.S. Drone Policy: Standing Near Terrorists Makes You A Terrorist

 

[joG]

And soldiers kill even fewer civilians. They also don't consider every male in a blast radius as a terrorist.

U.S. Drone Policy: Standing Near Terrorists Makes You A Terrorist

Oh yes. I realize the implications of the level of force, the type of weapon and all that. The best thing under that aspect would probably be to ask the local authorities to round up the suspects to stand court. That will not fly, though. Boots on the ground will get more Americans killed and is much more expensive. Depending on tactics and weapons used, however, the collateral can be very high also. That aside, drones are probably the next step up as far as collateral is concerned. There is no guaranty that the boots will actually kill fewer than the drone, however, because they must get there and back. One must not forget that the targets are well hidden among civilians and the heavies shoot from inside crowds.

Nope. I do not go with Huffington on this one. After considering the alternatives a while ago I see nothing in new the present analysis to justify using other weapons.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Oh yes. I realize the implications of the level of force, the type of weapon and all that. The best thing under that aspect would probably be to ask the local authorities to round up the suspects to stand court. That will not fly, though. Boots on the ground will get more Americans killed and is much more expensive. Depending on tactics and weapons used, however, the collateral can be very high also. That aside, drones are probably the next step up as far as collateral is concerned. There is no guaranty that the boots will actually kill fewer than the drone, however, because they must get there and back. One must not forget that the targets are well hidden among civilians and the heavies shoot from inside crowds.

Nope. I do not go with Huffington on this one. After considering the alternatives a while ago I see nothing in new the present analysis to justify using other weapons.

I know that conventional troops are more expensive and riskier than drones, but we don't have to take a conventional route at all. The Israeli Special Forces undertake assassination missions on a regular basis without blowing up noncombatants, why is it not an option for the US as well?

Furthermore, with enough behind-the-scenes political pressure on the governments in charge, we could easily have them round up suspected terrorists for trial. I don't see why we haven't done so already.

 

[joG]

I know that conventional troops are more expensive and riskier than drones, but we don't have to take a conventional route at all. The Israeli Special Forces undertake assassination missions on a regular basis without blowing up noncombatants, why is it not an option for the US as well?

Furthermore, with enough behind-the-scenes political pressure on the governments in charge, we could easily have them round up suspected terrorists for trial. I don't see why we haven't done so already.

I believe that one of the main reasons, which is often admitted is the political fallout of seeing captured Americans dragged through the streets. Black Hawk Down is not something that rings happily in Washington ears. Or imagine the ruckus, if an American pilot were burnt in a cage on YouTube like that Jordanian was. I do not think that the American stomach could take that. We cannot even handle the brutality it takes to pacify an area after removing a dictator. How should we handle that?

As to the behind the scenes pressure, I am totally with you and had hoped the out man of change was going to operate Syria like that. I do think he did his best in this respect. But it was a test he didn't score too well on.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

I believe that one of the main reasons, which is often admitted is the political fallout of seeing captured Americans dragged through the streets. Black Hawk Down is not something that rings happily in Washington ears. Or imagine the ruckus, if an American pilot were burnt in a cage on YouTube like that Jordanian was. I do not think that the American stomach could take that. We cannot even handle the brutality it takes to pacify an area after removing a dictator. How should we handle that?

As to the behind the scenes pressure, I am totally with you and had hoped the out man of change was going to operate Syria like that. I do think he did his best in this respect. But it was a test he didn't score too well on.

There doesn't seem to be a good choice available at this point, does there?

 

[joG]

There doesn't seem to be a good choice available at this point, does there?

You are right. But that is because we are letting ourselves be maneuvered into the wrong game. We are going to have to change the structure and rules of international security and time in not as unlimited as Obama seems to think. As it is going, we are running out of time.

 

[FreedomFromAll]

Watching the VICE channel today the subject was robotics and their role in the present and future. As applied to war one opinion was peoples of the world hate us because of drone strikes with the logic being the victims have no warning and cannot strike back. I find that premise absurd because it is "war" and in war the goal is to destroy and kill. If one army had only knives then would it be immoral if the opposing army developed swords? Weren't bombers developed to kill from a distance instead of sending in armies? Weren't long rifles invented to reduce casualties caused by hand to hand? Weren't catapults developed hundreds of years ago to kill form a distance? Quote the film Patton,"The idea of war is not to die for your country but to make the other poor sonofabitch die for his". "All's fair in love and war".

Drone vs cruise missile?

 

[CrabCake]

As with any new technology, especially one for the battlefield, it comes with new questions. Drones used in a war zone are a no-brainer; it's definitely more precise than other kinds of ordinance that might be used in such a situation. The problem is that Drones are often used in areas that are not war zones. Drones target the homes of suspected terrorists, which are often in populated areas not currently engaged in warfare. Sometimes Drone strikes are used in countries that aren't even involved in the war. This raises a lot of questions.

When Drones are used in situations where a traditional bomb would ordinarily be used, it is certainly a more moral option than a bomb.
When Drones are used in places that you wouldn't ordinarily approve bombing (cities that aren't near battlefields, countries that aren't at war, etc.), then it starts becoming questionable.


In addition to the above, there's also the due process question. While killing the leader of a known terrorist organization may be warranted; at other times the killings are questionable. Should someone who merely makes videos that sympathize with terrorists be valid targets? What about someone we don't have strong evidence against? Can we really sentence people to death without allowing them a defense? How sure do we need to be that the target is a valid target before we pull the trigger?

 

[rhinefire]

Send your children to war or send a drone?