The Moral Case For Drone Warfare
Via Steven Pinker, Scott Shane writes in the NYT that "some moral philosophers, political scientists and weapons specialists believe armed, unmanned aircraft offer marked moral advantages over almost any other tool of warfare":
"I had ethical doubts and concerns when I started looking into this," said Bradley J. Strawser, a former Air Force officer and an assistant professor of philosophy at the Naval Postgraduate School. But after a concentrated study of remotely piloted vehicles, he said, he concluded that using them to go after terrorists not only was ethically permissible but also might be ethically obligatory, because of their advantages in identifying targets and striking with precision."You have to start by asking, as for any military action, is the cause just?" Mr. Strawser said. But for extremists who are indeed plotting violence against innocents, he said, "all the evidence we have so far suggests that drones do better at both identifying the terrorist and avoiding collateral damage than anything else we have."
Since drone operators can view a target for hours or days in advance of a strike, they can identify terrorists more accurately than ground troops or conventional pilots. They are able to time a strike when innocents are not nearby and can even divert a missile after firing if, say, a child wanders into range.
Clearly, those advantages have not always been used competently or humanely; like any other weapon, armed drones can be used recklessly or on the basis of flawed intelligence. If an operator targets the wrong house, innocents will die.
Moreover, any analysis of actual results from the Central Intelligence Agency's strikes in Pakistan, which has become the world's unwilling test ground for the new weapon, is hampered by secrecy and wildly varying casualty reports. But one rough comparison has found that even if the highest estimates of collateral deaths are accurate, the drones kill fewer civilians than other modes of warfare.
I will agree with it being more ethical (less armed forces living in the moment) so I approve of drones just not some of the obviously stupid operators we have piloting them.
NakkiNyan at July 15, 2012 7:34 AM
" if, say, a child wanders into range" - According to the president that child would be considered an enemy combatant.
mike at July 15, 2012 7:53 AM
"Since drone operators can view a target for hours or days in advance of a strike, they can identify terrorists more accurately than ground troops or conventional pilots. They are able to time a strike when innocents are not nearby and can even divert a missile after firing if, say, a child wanders into range."
Wow, the entire quote from this guy reads like a classic example of doublespeak.
"because of their advantages in identifying targets and striking with precision."
This history of drone warfare, as reported in the New York Times is that of hitting plenty of civilians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan
The guy quoted is some jackass "Bradley J. Strawser, a former Air Force officer and an assistant professor of philosophy at the Naval Postgraduate School".
'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'
jerry at July 15, 2012 10:15 AM
> But one rough comparison has found that
> even if the highest estimates of collateral
> deaths are accurate, the drones kill fewer
> civilians than other modes of warfare.
This is usually Raddy's point to make, but we are not in a state of 'warfare' with Pakistan.
The "collateral" suffering caused by slapping a stranger in the street is less than that of stabbing them in the gut, but why are you assaulting strangers on the street anyway?
These drone attacks are assassinations. The other states of the globe would be just as angry with us if we decided to pursue our politics by killing people with a huge team of shadowy, James Bond-ninja sharpshooters.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 15, 2012 11:04 AM
Fits right in with Obama's decision that any unarmed military-aged males killed by drones are considered terrorists and legal targets because they were killed by drones.
If you were never proud of America before, Michelle, you can be proud now!
Anyone taking bets on whether President Romney will stop this?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 15, 2012 12:25 PM
No. No, he will not.
He certainly should.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 15, 2012 1:22 PM
The genies have escaped out of the bottle, and are now directed to fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan; and other places in the world.
From one viewpoint -- we should not be meddling in the affairs of other countries. From the viewpoint that they meddled with us, we -- as a country -- have some right to prevent something resembling justice and defending against further attacks.
And if we're going to do it, we should do it the safest way for our people.
Jim P. at July 15, 2012 5:43 PM
Un-manned drones are weapons - a means of waging war and killing enemy combatants (uniformed or otherwise). They are no more or less moral than rifles. They're delivery systems for bombs and missiles.
The morality of how drones are used, like strategic bombing and snipers, can be debated endlessly.
Drones can observe and strike targets without putting US service members in danger. And giving as much protection as possible to US service members in a war is the president's moral responsibility.
=========================
Which is moral, the gun that kills a man so the robber can take his wallet, or the gun that kills a man about to rape a young girl?
Or is the morality in the wielder of the weapon?
==============================
The generally-accepted immorality of certain weapon systems (chemical, biological, etc.) is usually based on not wanting them used against one...
...and on the probability that the effects could get out of hand. Loose a biological pathogen on Baghdad and the wind could carry it to Tel Aviv or Riyadh.
...and on a desire for good relations with the civilian population after the conflict is over. Carpet bomb a country's cities for a few years and the people aren't likely to be cheering your soldiers as liberators.
==============================
The desire to protect an opponent's civilian populations is admirable - and a positive step in the moral evolution of the human race. Notice how it's only the West that seems to differentiate between illegitimate civilian and legitiimate military targets.
Usually this is done to protect a population that had little choice but to go along with the actions of an oppressive totalitarian government.
That said, is protecting a civilian population that cheers and supports mass murderers and terrorists the moral imperative of those attacked by the very mass murderers and terrorists these civilians cheer?
=========================
That said - Obama's casual incursions into Pakistani and Yemeni airspace are troubling - even if they're to reach otherwise unreachable high-level al Qaeda operatives.
As Crid pointed out, we're not in a state of war with Pakistan and Yemen. These drone attacks are public assassinations.
Conan the Grammarian at July 15, 2012 6:39 PM
Just wait until they can fly over America.
Radwaste at July 16, 2012 2:46 AM
Just wait until they can fly over America.
I was under the impression that the EPA has drones in the field now. Is that wrong?
I R A Darth Aggie at July 16, 2012 6:17 AM
Leave a comment