Robert Sparrow's piece on Arms Control raises issues that are difficult to bring up to the attention of those involved in developing this kind of warfare; with so much at stake I cannot help but think that it is a matter of time before these issues are taken seriously, respect for human life. At prima facie it seems this is the answer to minimizing 'casualties', for preserving our soldiers, but there is more to consider here. At this time, those who hold the technology have the power over those that do not. What happens when those that do not hold this new robotic-type of warfare catch up?
Could a person operating, or controlling, a robotic killing machine get carried away and become so desensitized to his/her target, that respect for human life is completely obliterated? Although I dare not compare the power of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), Unmanned Weapons Systems (UMSs) and the Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUVs) to those more destructive ones, Arms Control of these weapons can be a positive even for those that hold the power--it can translate to the survival of everyone.
For one thing, this sophisticated form of targeting and 'expiring' targets seems a bit unethical as there are no values attached to it. Is it honorable to kill without courage? Without a real fight? As Sparrows' mentions in his piece of "Predators or Plowshares?", Psychological Distance:
"Psychological Distance
The first and in some ways the most obvious reason for concern about the development of unmanned systems is the possibility that they will undercut warfighters' respect for human life by facilitating "killing at a distance" [41]."
The technology is nice to have for urban and civilian purposes, like search and rescue efforts in natural disasters, especially with earthquakes and hurricanes; however, in war, I am not so sure this is fair game if only one side can use it. What is the point of even declaring war on the other side?
Could a person operating, or controlling, a robotic killing machine get carried away and become so desensitized to his/her target, that respect for human life is completely obliterated? Although I dare not compare the power of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), Unmanned Weapons Systems (UMSs) and the Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUVs) to those more destructive ones, Arms Control of these weapons can be a positive even for those that hold the power--it can translate to the survival of everyone.
For one thing, this sophisticated form of targeting and 'expiring' targets seems a bit unethical as there are no values attached to it. Is it honorable to kill without courage? Without a real fight? As Sparrows' mentions in his piece of "Predators or Plowshares?", Psychological Distance:
"Psychological Distance
The first and in some ways the most obvious reason for concern about the development of unmanned systems is the possibility that they will undercut warfighters' respect for human life by facilitating "killing at a distance" [41]."
The technology is nice to have for urban and civilian purposes, like search and rescue efforts in natural disasters, especially with earthquakes and hurricanes; however, in war, I am not so sure this is fair game if only one side can use it. What is the point of even declaring war on the other side?
Blanca, a couple of good thoughts here... a) the potential "peacetime" uses of such technology are tremendous, and b) "At this time, those who hold the technology have the power over those that do not. What happens when those that do not hold this new robotic-type of warfare catch up?" The latter is certainly a thread in some of the reading for today, and a useful reminder that the U.S. cannot always assume that it will be the only "superpower" with such technology. At the risk of sounding like the Golden Rule, I'd suggest that we should be using this technology today as we would hope others would in the future (against us).
ReplyDelete