The Forum > Article Comments > Drones and the new ethics of war > Comments
Drones and the new ethics of war : Comments
By Neve Gordon, published 27/1/2015The notion of turning the Predator into a predator had finally been realized. Within a year, the Predator was preying on live targets in Afghanistan.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
-
- All
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 7:31:59 AM
| |
I used to have a lot to say about the moral status of military personnel, having never been to war myself. I still haven’t. But I have realised that if I am to shelter behind a soldier, I at least need to acknowledge the risk he or she is taking on my behalf.
I suggest we return to the days of chivalry. Where the “other ranks” wore red jackets to give the other chaps a fighting chance. It’s the machine gun we should ban, making all this shooting so jolly indiscriminate – it even brought an end to the cavalry, which always used to put on such a superb show for those of us able to watch from a nearby hilltop. It is good to debate drones in this way, but it brings to mind a personal account by my father of a large raid on Mandalay in 1944. In the course of this event they flattened the entire Japanese quarter of the city. I have an aerial photo taken from one of the heavy bombers; the bombing was accurate for time, with the destruction following quite closely down the streets either side of the targeted blocks. They went for the Japanese deliberately and as best they could, but what about the many Burmese who were caught up in the attack? The air crew were well aware of how this panned out on the ground. It is safe for us to chat about the need for a soldier to feel the danger personally, to justify (to some extent) killing on the basis of the risk of being killed. To ponder whether the horror of combat and the risk of casualties introduces some measure of restraint. Perhaps Neve has seen active duty and has a firmer foundation from which to comment on drones than I have. However I am glad we can now shelter behind robots, somewhat. Because I regret having to shelter behind a soldier, while recognising that I will continue to do so. Posted by Boxer, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 11:26:55 AM
| |
This may just be our modern salvation.
At Kokoda it was only the fact that our country kids could shoot straight before they joined up that saved our bacon. Perhaps the fact that so many of our kids, & young adults are learning to fly these things for fun will give us something of an advantage in the next one. We will need something, now most of our people don't even know which end of a gun is dangerous. My son, who was until recently instructing officer cadets prior them going to Duntroon, was telling me his biggest problem, was in getting them to keep their eyes open when the gun went BANG, loudly. With these things they won't hear the bang, so they may be able to keep their eyes open, & see what they are doing. Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 11:56:37 AM
| |
Well, RObert. I suppose some people can see nothing but misery in every bit of good news. You are worried that drone technology could be misused by western governments? I am happy that it is being used effectively to kill the terrorist enemies of our people.
Since the Muslim terrorist incident at the Munich Olympics, the free world has been very much on the defensive from Muslim terrorists. They have bombed our aircraft, buses, trains, rail stations, sporting events and nightclubs. You don't win wars by waiting until the other guy hits you, you do it by going after them and putting them on the defensive. Drone warfare has for the first time put the terrorists on the defensive, and all you see is misery. So far, over 30 senior terrorist leaders from Al Qaida and the Taliban have been splattered all over the countryside, along with their bodyguards. There is nowhere except the deepest jungles where the drones can not find them, and terminate them with extreme prejudice. This is a unique moment in military history. When it comes to guerrilla wars, we now have the technology to go after the enemy leaders who send fools to do their bidding, while sitting in comfort in the rear, with the beer and the gear, and with all the money, power, and sex they want. Drone warfare is not beyond government control. The Predator was originally specified by the CIA who never intended to arm them. When the drones were armed, the CIA refused to fly them citing the Congressional the ban on CIA assassinations. The drones were transferred to the US Air force, which is under government control. It is too late to put the genie back in the bottle anyway, so stop whining. Even remote control airplane hobbyists can access the technology to do their own reconnaissance missions. This includes programming RC aircraft to fly GPS controlled missions, as well as the fact that RC transmitters can use satellites to control RC planes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrSEyS-GpZs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DjPiCdE2KI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPlWho3KJHY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NqzXXFi4ms Posted by LEGO, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 7:02:33 PM
|
I'd consider myself a crazy right liberal, undecided about wimpy. When it gets to it I don't consider it overly wimpy to be concerned about government power or that power being exercised without independant review. There is a tradition within parts of the right to consider abuse of government power a greater threat than a lot of the external threats used to justify those extensions of government. In my view even more justified as the potential for constant monitoring by government grows.
Number plate recognition, rapidly improving electronic facial recognition, scanning of emails and other electronic communications, logging of phone calls etc all have some good uses for protecting our security and a risk of being part of taking away freedom.
I'm overall pro-american but I've also noticed that when they have debates about whos freedoms are protected we are not mentioned. As they talk about limits to monitoring those limits apply to Americans with a seeming assumption that non-americans are open game (even as Americans privacy protections are breached in secret).
I have no reason to assume that America (or more specifically its then president and his or her inner circle) will always act just against shared enemies. Enough history suggesting that they have got it to wrong in the past let alone in the future. Left or right we should be concerned when there is a change that gives thise who hold power far greater capability to hurt their opponents without accountability.
R0bert