Ethical Dilemmas In The Military

"Military Drone Use Makes War More Likely." Drones, edited by Tamara Thompson, Greenhaven Press, 2016. Current Controversies. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, ez1.maricopa.edu/login?url=http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010977214/OVIC?u=mcc_chandler&xid=4e13efcc. Accessed 2 Nov. 2017.

In recent years, drones have begun to do jobs that we didn’t think was possible. Soon, you may find a drone in front of your home, carrying the pepperoni pizza you ordered 20 minutes ago, or see drones putting out a fire in your neighborhood. Now, drones are being used as soldiers in our war against terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, these drones have caused many problems for the U.S. over the years. The use of drones fighting for us causes more problems than actually fixing them (Source A)

Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century written by Peter Warren Singer. In his book, Mr. Singer explores and supports his theory of how technology is quickly and decisively changing the way the U.S. fights wars. This book was written in 2009 and the author provides historical data up to 2009 on how the military relies on technology in the battlefield. Mr. Singer’s credentials include a Ph.D. in Government from Harvard and a BA from the Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton2. He has worked with numerous U.S. government agencies as advisor and continues to provide his services in that capacity. He has published books which relate to the military such as Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the

Now, because of drones, the standard for a great American soldier has changed. Instead of the strong admirable men that we’ve grown to know the new breed of “so called ‘warriors’ who just use computers to do this get higher accolades than the men who fought on the ground ever got,” are becoming more prominent (Babbin, 2013, Obama’s Drone War). These men are basically computer geeks who get recognition for risking their lives, meanwhile they’re sitting behind a screen. This is unfair to veterans of the past who have died or are permanently injured from actually fighting. Veterans are enraged by this, and now, they may question their patriotism. Since these veterans feed our depiction of loyalty and pride this is damaging America’s patriotism as a whole.

As the Vietnam War was winding down, the robots were gearing up.” (Shaw, 2014). The heavy losses sustained and the success of drones during Vietnam compelled the US to advance its drones. Understanding the drone’s

John Kaag and Sarah Kreps describe the growing discrepancies by stating, “The rhetoric and moral thinking about war has become woollier as our weaponry has become more precise” (“The Ease of Drone Warfare Raises Serious Moral Questions”). They point out the fact that as technology is being revolutionized, knowing where to draw the line becomes more uncertain, causing public opinion to waver more and more. Drone warfare provides convenience, efficiency, and effectiveness to war tactics. With higher accuracy and technical precision, drones have minimized civilian casualties in comparison to traditional weapons of war which cause more collateral damage to people and property than drones. Kenneth Anderson argues in favor of drones stating, “Drone warfare is an honorable attempt to seek out terrorists and insurgents who hide among civilians” (“The Case for Drones”).

When targets are disposed of through means of remote-controlled drones, the U.S becomes disconnected with the war itself. Drone Pilot Colonel D. Scott Brenton himself admitted that in conducting drone strikes with just a screen and controls, he feels no connection or emotion for the people he kills ("Should the United"). This should not be so. Through this, the U.S is able to go to any measure and continue any conflict as it pleases with no remorse for the cost of human lives. This further enables the U.S to disregard moral principles, at the cost of as many human lives as the U.S pleases. War should have restrictions, and every life should be bargained and reasoned with. With this disconnect though, the U.S uses as much force as it pleases in conflicts that threaten their interest. This disconnect through drone strikes also allows the U.S not to notice or care for how it is spreading to the general civilian life in the affected regions. According to witnesses and researchers, drone strikes are harming local populations “beyond death and physical injury” ("Should the United"). Many witness that the people in affected regions live in constant fear of drone strikes, and are afraid to travel or participate in any sort of meeting. Many incidents of local deaths and injuries due to these drone strikes plague the population, and many people consider the drones to be

Everyone in the world wants to live in a safe environment and some strive to keep the environment safe for everyone around them. Citizens are depending on the government to take this responsibility to do anything in their power to help keep their people safe, even through the implementation of drones. While drones will not always have zero casualties, the regulation of drone use by the government frightens the enemies to attempt any dangerous plots, it helps eliminate terrorist organizations and any imminent threats, and it reduces the number of civilian casualties by a huge factor.

With the development of technological drone warfare, the United States people have been barely kept in the loop of what their country is doing. This being said, it is impossible to deny that drones have protected the United States troops. Because of this, there will always be an argument for the use of drones. However, there has been even more evidence of heavy costs; such as pilot mental health, casualties, military funds, and the transparency of the government. To begin, the government (especially President Barack Obama) has had to compromise their integrity to keep the drone program running. For example, it is believed that the “Lethal Presidency” has been hidden through proxy leaders – people who announce the news of the drones in order to keep civilians distracted from the President’s calls. Ultimately, the drone program started with somewhat good intentions but has been proving to be a deadly investment.

Advancements in warfare technology and weaponry have been the defining factors in battle since the dawn of civilization. The one with the bigger gun usually wins. This is a fact that hasn’t changed much since the beginnings of warfare and holds true today and in today’s world Drones have become the next warfare advantage. Along with any advancement in warfare weaponry comes a very heated and controversial discussion about its actual real-world utilization. Many argue that the use of Drones in war is unmoral and unethical. This paper aims to take a closer look at both sides of this argument. First, I will establish and explain the moral arguments against the use of drone

The articles’ intended audience is people with little insight of how the military operates based on their strict ethical guidelines. The article showed how ethics in the military while hiring civilians or dealing with internal problems can be significantly challenging. This article gave great information from a well-informed and knowledgeable individual. The author took a look at how people actually view the military and how important the role of ethics is, as it relates to mission success. The military has ethical problems every day and they are more in the public’s eye now than ever before, because of social media.

Drones have taken the interest of militaries and private companies across the world. The “global market for unmanned aerial vehicles is now $6 billion a year” and that “more than fifty countries moving to acquire drones” Charleston Gazette journalists wrote (Pg1). Most of these are military drones, for private companies and the military to use. Many would argue that offensive and defensive drone use should have many safeguards in place that are backed up by international law. This would be to keep militaries and private users from violating human rights agreements, and to help prevent breaches of privacy. While drone strikes eliminate american casualties, they “also help distance the public from what is going on” as journalist Juan Cole iterated (Pg1) .

Mary Ellen O’Connell, a research professor at the Kroc, Institute, University of Notre Dame, and the Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame, tells the congressional Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs “Lawful Use of Combat Drones” that the United States is failing more often than not to follow the most important single rule governing drones: restricting their use to the battlefield. O’Connell begins her argument with by describing combat drones as battlefield weapons capable of inflicting very serious damage and being unlawful for use outside combat zones. She states that police are the proper law enforcement agents, outside these zones, and are generally required to warn before using lethal force. By failing to restrict these remote weapons systems to the battlefield the U.S. is failing to respect a basic rule that contradicts the goal of winning hearts and minds to respect the rule of law. She breaks her speech into three sections: drones as a lawful battlefield weapon, the battlefield defined, and battlefield restraints.

Drone usage has become global, and has affected society on many different levels, both positive and negative. In the United States, however, over half of the country is uncomfortable with the usage of drones. Through the analysis of case studies, legislation for drone usage, law enforcement usage of drones for public safety, and public concern, the ethicality of drone usage is at question. With Mexico and Australia having a more consistent policy, both countries could be seen as more ethical through utilitarian and Kantian ethics in comparison to the US.

Using drones as weapons in warfare blinds the steersman from the reality that is war. In combat, people are viciously murdering thousands of human beings, many whom are innocent. By sending in drones to perform the decimation, it makes the actuality of what is happening seem less terrible, for the murder is not directly stricken from person to person. There is an article that explains the circumstances of a drone pilot, which quotes, “He had delivered this deathblow without having been in any danger himself. The men he killed, and the marines on the ground, were at war. They were risking their hides. Whereas he was working his scheduled shift in a comfortable office building, on a sprawling base, in a peaceful country” (Bowden, “The Killing Machines”). When employing drones to kill, it is as if one is putting on a mask to cover up all the shame and sin being demonstrated. Some believe that if the murder is done blindly, it does not seem as bad or immoral. But it does not matter if the killing is performed halfway across the world at the push of a button, or soldier to soldier on the battle field. The level of immorality is the same – if not greater with drones. While on the battlefield, you are completely aware of the situation and are in the same position as the people you are fighting, whereas with