Ethics of robots/drones/unmanned machines use in war

[Churchill]

Well no, I don't. The exact same process is happening on both sides. The drone team is simply playing the part of the soldier. They're the instrument of death. They're the ones pulling the trigger. They know as little of the operation as the soldier does. They're just there to follow orders.

You're taking a large amount of responsibility an individual has for firing his weapon in combat away from him by that statement. If I choose to shoot something, it's based on a set of rules determined by higher ups. This can be as limited or as broad as higher ups have determined for the conflict but the actual decision to fire is mine and mine alone. In this instance, I am making the decision that regardless of any other considerations that said target must be dropped.

In the case of someone operating a drone, they don't make that decision. There are also specific rules and conditions for them, but ultimately they are the gun and not the individual.

[Rhyis.]

In the case of someone operating a drone, they don't make that decision.

Why not? They can decide not to pull the trigger just like the solider can. That option isn't suddenly taken from them.

[hey]

Why not? They can decide not to pull the trigger just like the solider can. That option isn't suddenly taken from them.

Not really. And even if they do, someone else will just do it.

[Rhinox]

Someone post the wiki leaks video of the gunship operators laughing and exclaiming everything but boom head shot.

I've never murdered anyone but I can imagine it's easier to kill people you see die on a monitor as opposed to having to see the carnage up close.

[Rhyis.]

Not really. And even if they do, someone else will just do it.

... Which can happen on the field just as easily. Jimmy won't take the shot? Oh ok, get Smith to do it. Pop pop, mission accomplished. Let's get chow.

[Rhinox]

You're wrong

[Rhyis.]

Except that actually happens.

[Churchill]

I've never seen Jimmy not take the shot.

[Rhinox]

But it's not as prevalent.

[Rhyis.]

I've never seen Jimmy not take the shot.

Jimmy's got shit aim anyway.

[Niiro]

Why not? They can decide not to pull the trigger just like the solider can. That option isn't suddenly taken from them.

On what information can they base their decision? Latitude and longitude?

Shooting a human being with a face isn't the same thing as Right click -> deploying a bomb on a map display.

A soldier can discern between civilians and combatants, can call in medical aid for the injured (civilian OR neutralized combatant), and can accept gestures of surrender. They may make mistakes, they may get injured or killed themselves, but that's what war is and should be for any nation that considers itself civilized.

As far as a drone strike is concerned anyone in the vicinity of the target is collateral damage and that damage is much easier to accept when you don't have to see it. A drone doesn't identify civilians, the injured, doesn't drop a robot medic in afterwards to mitigate any collateral damage, it can't recognize or accept surrenders.

Dehumanizing war only makes it easier to wage, it's not a good thing.

[Churchill]

Collateral damage assessments are actually a big reason why 1) people in operation of drones don't make decisions and 2) they aren't used as often as you think

The perceived value of the target has to be incredibly high to ignore or accept any amount of civilian loss of life. Also, while not always the case, please keep in mind that when Taliban village elder Mohammad Taliban steps up to the mic to claim the US has killed 8 women and 13 children, he's probably making it up. Failure to realize this is a failure as a human being to accept that the "enemy" (read: silly muj) is just as able to spin the media with propaganda in its favor.

[Niiro]

Also, while not always the case, please keep in mind that when Taliban village elder Mohammad Taliban steps up to the mic to claim the US has killed 8 women and 13 children, he's probably making it up. Failure to realize this is a failure as a human being to accept that the "enemy" (read: silly muj) is just as able to spin the media with propaganda in its favor.

It's also worth pointing out that such claims lose a lot of weight when people see soldiers treating their wounded family and friends and providing aid to civilians effected by the combat (food, housing, etc).

A drone strike, from a local uninformed civilian perspective, is no different from terrorism and only serves to give that village elder actual legitimacy to demonizing the attackers on top of whatever lies he wants.

[Rhyis.]

On what information can they base their decision? Latitude and longitude?

The ground soldiers calling the thing in, or depending on the area, the satellite feed.

I'm haven't made an argument that every solider on the field should be taken off the job and we should turn the whole thing into a robot war, so kindly don't start strawmaning me. I simply disagree with Church that accountability is suddenly thrown out the window when you take soldiers out of the equation. Especially the way drones are currently used now.

[Churchill]

Someone is accountable, but they will never be held accountable. That was my point.

If I decide to merc a dude for looking like a hajj, I will get prosecuted.

If a General ignores collateral damage estimates and says do it, he's probably not getting wrung up.

[Rhyis.]

Which I'm sure would have more to do with his position than because of his actions.

[Churchill]

Which is my point behind holding people accountable for following lawful orders.

There is always a certain subjectivity in dealing with drone strikes.

[archibaldcrane]

Do I get to be the person to point out the obviousness that virtually anyone even remotely involved with 9/11 has already been killed or captured years ago, and our current campaigns against Al Queda are essentially Bush-doctrineesque preemptive warfare?

[Rhyis.]

That goes without saying.

[ronin sparthos]

Do I get to be the person to point out the obviousness that virtually anyone even remotely involved with 9/11 has already been killed or captured years ago, and our current campaigns against Al Queda are essentially Bush-doctrineesque preemptive warfare?

Thus why the conflict was dubbed "The War on Terror" rather than "Revenge for 9/11". One is a Sisyphean task, the other has clearly defined parameters we've already met.