Personally I am more concerned with the drones that Federal, State, and Local
either are or will be operating in the US. It's my understanding that the
EPA is already using drones to monitor farmer's agricultural practices in
the midwest. Police Departments are hoping to be able to use drones
domestically. We better start having some conversations about drones.
Amen. Part of the discussion should be whether or not we should be engaging win
"Wars of Choice" regardless of the weaponry employed. And how do we
determine whether a particular conflict is a war of choice, or one of necessity?
Drones are a tool. It all depends on the application. If we were delivering
medical supplies with them it would be fine.The applications need to
be discussed. I don't think anyone here thinks about what it would be like
to live under the constant threat of a wedding or other social event being
bombed because some guest you don't even know is on the bad list of a
country half way around the world.That actually sounds like
terrorism to me. So no, I don't think we should be using drones, planes or
any other weapon for terrorism.
As a pilot, I'm very worried about unmanned drones with no pilot's
eyes in the cockpit. There is already enough danger of mid-air collisions for
aircraft operating VFR (visual flight rules) without adding unpiloted aircraft
to the sky.
1. Drones are our most effective way to kill terrorists2. They kill
terrorists with no loss of American lifeand3 minimal
loss of innocent life in theater.If this isn't ethical then I
don't want ethical.
cjb, agreed with the first two. But (3) are you going to find a way to fly a
drone into a theater?But also, how about making sure all the wars we
engage in are ethical, really necessary wars?
NRA response: Drones don't kill people.......
In WWII, fighter planes were used to target German and Japanese commanders. This
greatly shortened the war and led to fewer Allied casualties. We have to remind
ourselves that although the war on terror is not in the same scale as WWII, we
face an enemy no less radical and no less evil. Against such we should employ
whatever technology is the most efficient at defeating them. Just because other
nations might use the tech in unethical ways doesn't mean we should abandon
our own tools of war. I doubt anyone would have objected to targeted drone
killing of Hitler, Himmler, or Goering.
SO what is more ethical - sending a drone to kill the bad guys and risking none
of our troupes or sending in our own guys on the ground - losing many of them -
and still killing the bad guys? Seems to me drones provide a way to save life
and so I'm sure what this talk about ethics is all about. There is no way
to fight a clean war.
Not any more or less ethical than firing a missile or pilots carpet bombing
cities in past wars or dropping the atomic bomb. In fact, if using drones could
save lives, American and others (though well planned surgical strikes) than it
could be argued that NOT using them is unethical...As Sherman said,
"War is All Hell" and when a country chooses to fight, one should fight
@patriot"There is no way to fight a clean war."You can avoid it in the first place!
re:LValfrehow do you avoid a war when the bad guys blow up three
buildings in New York and Washington murdering 4000 Americans in the process? I
guess you could just do nothing and let them do it over and over and over again.
Doubt that mentality would have worked in 1939 with a guy named Adolf. Peace
through strength is what won the cold war - not appeasement and cut n run.
No, there is absolutely no discussion that needs to take place concerning the
use of drones. This editorial is totally confused. The conversation that needs
to take place is the conversation that will un-confuse the author of this
editorial: the morality of warfare. Clearly the author is squeemish about
warfare and likely considers it immoral to value his life over that of his would
be killers.If warfare is moral, the means of the warfare is NOT up
for debate. If war is moral, you can morally prosecute the war to a speedy and
decisive end with whatever means and whatever ferocity and upon any supporting
resource, even civilians, that is judged needful by those prosecuting the war
with their own lives.Most importantly, if war is moral, then it is
the nature of the enemy that makes it so. To expect our soldiers to play on an
"even playing field" against an enemy of evil nature is an outrageous
suggestion. Our soldiers fight for THEIR life and freedom and that of their
loved ones. The honor of victory derives from the morality of the war's
purpose (properly the defense of life and liberty), not from its methodology.
@Pippin"If warfare is moral, the means of the warfare is NOT up for
debate."I respectfully disagree. Civilized humanity has moved
beyond *jus ad bellum* (acceptable justifications to engage in warfare) and also
recognizes *jus in bello* (limits to acceptable warfare conduct), which includes
international humanitarian law, the Geneva and Hague Conventions, and the legal
framework which dictates the Rules of Engagement for various military
operations.The discussion regarding the ethics of armed UAV use (I
don't think anyone is questioning UAV use for surveillance and
intelligence-gathering) needs to be in the context of established *jus in
bello*, weighing (among other things) the outcomes of armed UAV use versus
prohibition and the relative likelihood of armed UAV use by enemy combatants
against U.S. interests.Right now, I'm not sure where I stand on
this complex issue.
@ SG in SLCThank you for your respectful disagreement.It
seems to me that international warfare agreements like those you named are
flawed, since they elevate Nazism, Communism, or Islamic Totalitarianism to
equal footing with Freedom (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness). It
seems like we're saying that all these causes have equal validity and
therefore, should fighting break out, all should abide by equal rules of
engagement. It is this moral egalitarianism that I disdain.So, I
argue that our own moral correctness, rather than the methodology should be the
topic of debate. Freedom and liberty is the moral. Compulsion and all its
subsets is not. Are we right to fight? If so, then the only limit that seems
reasonable to me in a struggle for life and liberty is the limit of victory
i.e. once unconditional surrender is achieved, the fighting should abate. And
morally, that victory must come with the greatest speed and least destruction to
a country's own soldiers and treasure as possible... even if that victory
comes from an orbiting or airborne weapons platform.