the use of drones will become unethical as soon as they are used against the US
but may eventually become deterrents a la the nuclear stalemate
Re: Drones
Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:05 pm
by _Agu_
Tbh killing 2-10 times more civilians than enemy soldiers (go read about Iraq war/Vietnam etc.) seems to be pretty basic stuff, are there drones or not. I don't know does media/politicians tell you much of this stuff if you live in States or UK tho...
Re: Drones
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 12:02 am
by ThomasEll
I can understand why a military that has received a significant amount of criticism over troops that have died may want to use a system that doesn't put one of their soldiers directly into danger.
Re: Drones
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 12:26 am
by jrkhnds
Muncey wrote:Drones aren't accurate, despite being promoted as hugely accurate. So sending a drone attack on a target near a hospital or something would be extremely unethical.. knowing theres a chance it could kill a lot of innocent people. Being ethical in war would presumably be about picking a route which leads to the least innocent deaths/suffering. Drones have killed a lot of innocent people and if sending troops in or something else would have lead to a lot less deaths then obviously its an unethical choice.
Not going to war can be just as unethical as going to war btw, the Rwanda genocide is a good example of that.
To be clear: aggressive war is unethical by default. There are no other options. Soldiers, whose government decide to engage in aggressive actions, have the moral obligation to resist their orders. Every other choice is unethical. As long as drone strikes aren't used in defensive scenarios, their operators are to be considered murderers and should be prosecuted like every human being engaging in aggressive warfare.
Rwanda would've probably been a case of assisted self-defence? A very delicate matter...
Re: Drones
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 1:05 am
by rickyarbino
ezza wrote:i just dont get how u can talk ethically about war
im not saying they're good. they kill people
but so does everything else. why are they worse than any other form of warfare
I think it may be worth considering that one thing doesn't need to be worse than another for it to be a bad thing to do.
For instance, I could fly out to bristol and kill you or I could send a drone to do it. Both are bad and can be treated as such by separating from one another.
One issue though, what about the possibilities of hacking into a drone? Don't know if you can tbf, but it would be FUCKED if the wrong people started doing that.
Re: Drones
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 9:34 am
by magma
They're just weapons. I can't say I like any weapons very much, but I don't see them as much more than an extension of missile guidance, long-range sniper rifles or even the fire ships used to repel the Spanish Armada. Humans haven't had to be face to face to kill each other for a long time.
Re: Drones
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 11:50 am
by nobody
What's the difference between an Afghani Military Base and a Pakistani Elementary School?
I dunno, I just fly the drone
Re: Drones
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 12:17 pm
by jrkhnds
rickyarbino wrote:
One issue though, what about the possibilities of hacking into a drone? Don't know if you can tbf, but it would be FUCKED if the wrong people started doing that.
why? how would this be worse than the current situation?
Re: Drones
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 12:25 pm
by magma
rickyarbino wrote:One issue though, what about the possibilities of hacking into a drone? Don't know if you can tbf, but it would be FUCKED if the wrong people started doing that.
Yeah, that'd totally be a new danger.
Re: Drones
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:18 pm
by rickyarbino
jrkhnds wrote:
rickyarbino wrote:
One issue though, what about the possibilities of hacking into a drone? Don't know if you can tbf, but it would be FUCKED if the wrong people started doing that.
why? how would this be worse than the current situation?
For one thing:
Re: Drones
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:27 pm
by _Agu_
magma wrote:
rickyarbino wrote:One issue though, what about the possibilities of hacking into a drone? Don't know if you can tbf, but it would be FUCKED if the wrong people started doing that.
Yeah, that'd totally be a new danger.
Have you guys played Black Ops 2?
Re: Drones
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 7:25 pm
by Muncey
jrkhnds wrote:To be clear: aggressive war is unethical by default. There are no other options. Soldiers, whose government decide to engage in aggressive actions, have the moral obligation to resist their orders. Every other choice is unethical. As long as drone strikes aren't used in defensive scenarios, their operators are to be considered murderers and should be prosecuted like every human being engaging in aggressive warfare.
There are levels of unethical. You can be more or less unethical. Killing one innocent person is not as equally unethical as slaughtering millions. So choosing a more destructive (in terms of innocent people injured/killed) for no good reason is obviously more unethical.
Again, otherwise we'd just throw nuclear weapons at each other. The idea of 'killing is unethical so why is decimating everything in my path so much worse' is very dangerous imo. If you could, you should always save one more innocent life if possible. Sadly, convenience is a big factor.. its more convenient to bomb a whole area at the expense of innocent lives than send in trained troops which could be costly (in monetary terms) and take a long time.
Re: Drones
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:55 pm
by Phigure
ezza wrote:i just dont get how u can talk ethically about war
really? you dont see the difference in the way that, for example, great britain fought WWII, compared to the way the sizan acted? not all unethical actions are equally unethical
ultraspatial wrote:it reinforces the idea of war as spectacle for america
this is a good observation
ezza wrote:how is being killed by a drone any less ethical than a jet, bomb, gun, knife
i'm going to argue that technically, drones themselves arent more unethical. getting a bomb dropped on you is basically just as awful of a way to die, and just as awful to do to a human being. "you can't see them coming" is a stupid, irrelevant argument.
what's unethical is the way in which they're used, who theyre used on, and the indirect effects of using them. they aren't used against obvious enemy soldiers who are engaging in combat on a battlefield, theyre used against people who are simply deemed suspicious of being involved in or associated with the al qaeda/taliban/etc, no matter how poor the intelligence is. and it really doesn't matter either how many civilians theyre surrounded by. they use drones indiscriminately on homes, rural villages, cities, cafes, and even wedding parties.
the US drone program has killed upwards of 2000 civilians in the last 5 years
not to mention that drone policy (as well as violence imposed on the region in general) is just destabilizing the region further. every time you launch a drone strike and you kill somebody's father, mother, sister, child, cousin, etc, you're creating more and more individuals who begin sympathize with what the taliban and other groups are saying.
Re: Drones
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:44 pm
by deadly_habit
AC-130s and Apaches get the job done better
Re: Drones
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 5:35 pm
by ezza
for the unmanned/fully autonomous drones, who do you guys think take responsibility? its a huge team of people who have put together the code and algorithms, so if something goes wrong, blaming it one person is kinda tricky...
Re: Drones
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 5:38 pm
by nobody
Obama
Re: Drones
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 5:38 pm
by Forum
ezza wrote:for the unmanned/fully autonomous drones, who do you guys think take responsibility? its a huge team of people who have put together the code and algorithms, so if something goes wrong, blaming it one person is kinda tricky...
Who do you blame for any war?
Re: Drones
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 5:48 pm
by ezza
can u guys just answer properly so i can write this essay plz
