The Forum > General Discussion > The ethics of remote warfare
The ethics of remote warfare
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Page 10
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
![]() |
![]() Syndicate RSS/XML ![]() |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
You said: “Csteele, I put it to you that drones, especially as they improve over time, will actually decrease collateral damage.”
Well Yabby with respect I put it to you that drones, even if they improve over time, will actually increase collateral damage, partly because their use will escalate and partly because of the reaction of those being bombed.
Consider the words of Gen.Stanley A. McChrystal the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan, “We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat,”
Now he was referring to 'escalation of force' instances at checkpoints where the US forces had shot and killed carloads of Afghani civilians who were subsequently shown to completely innocent, rather than the victims of drone attacks. However it often virtually impossible to verify the innocent among those killed in drone attacks because they are outside the reach of ground forces.
You should further note that the senior NATO enlisted man in Afghanistan, Command Sgt. Maj. Michael Hall talks about how many of the detainees at Bagram air base where being turned into insurgents after hearing of people they knew being shot.
Anger over the drone strikes is not is dispute but I would say it is a factor in the rapid rise in Taliban numbers in Pakistan. More Afghanis along with the collateral damage needing to be slaughtered from the sky.
At least McChrystal has managed to cut the toll from drone strikes by 20 percent over the last year. He obviously thought this was an issue and recognised just because the weapon was available its overuse was unacceptable.
I'm a little surprised to see you find no reason to think so.