• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

Are spy/assassinatin drones morally acceptable?


  • Total voters
    75
  • Poll closed .
In my opinion, they're acceptable if used to defend your country. I don't agree with using them in countries we have no business being in (i.e. Yemen, Pakistan, etc.) but I'm fine with them being used in wars we're fighting.
 
I think there's a difference. If you're going to invade a nation you haven't declared war on for the sole and express purpose of an extrajudicial execution, it seems to me like you should have some skin in the game. Using an unmanned robot doesn't qualify as skin.

Better to lose an expendable machine than an irreplaceable life.
 
Better to lose an expendable machine than an irreplaceable life.

No, I don't think it's better. I don't think it's okay to reach out and snuff someone in a country we're not even at war with without risking lives of our own.
 
No, I don't think it's better. I don't think it's okay to reach out and snuff someone in a country we're not even at war with without risking lives of our own.

That mentality may have worked decades ago, but **** changed and we adapted our strategies and weapons for the war we're fighting today, not a war we fought 60 years ago. You may as well be demanding that we go back to fighting in box formations with banners and drummer boys.
 
I think there's a difference. If you're going to invade a nation you haven't declared war on for the sole and express purpose of an extrajudicial execution, it seems to me like you should have some skin in the game. Using an unmanned robot doesn't qualify as skin.

I don't think war should conform to romantic notions or masculine conceptions, the point of the state engaging in violence is to accomplish a political end. If we can accomplish that end without exposing any of our citizens to harm then we have made a significant advancement.
 
That mentality may have worked decades ago, but **** changed and we adapted our strategies and weapons for the war we're fighting today, not a war we fought 60 years ago. You may as well be demanding that we go back to fighting in box formations with banners and drummer boys.

I'm not objecting to the use of technology. I'm objecting to the use of technology replacing the human cost of war.
 
I don't think war should conform to romantic notions or masculine conceptions, the point of the state engaging in violence is to accomplish a political end. If we can accomplish that end without exposing any of our citizens to harm then we have made a significant advancement.

No, we haven't. We will have made war far more horrible than it has ever been in the course of human history.
 
No, we haven't. We will have made war far more horrible than it has ever been in the course of human history.

That is probably one of the more outrageously silly comments I've seen in quite a while. Really now, the use of robotic aircraft as a delivery vehicle for a tactical munition is such a malicious and terrible step into the abyss that it upends and casts a pall over the horrors of past 5,000 years of human warfare? Nonsense. Drones not only offer enormous utility, they do it while saving lives. The ability to hover on a target area for hours, sometimes up to a day, removing ambiguities over a potential target area by constant observation that a conventional fixed wing or helicopter strike would not afford you. They also can carry much lighter munitions than most conventional aircraft and can deliver them with greater precision reducing civilian casualties.
 
That is probably one of the more outrageously silly comments I've seen in quite a while. Really now, the use of robotic aircraft as a delivery vehicle for a tactical munition is such a malicious and terrible step into the abyss that it upends and casts a pall over the horrors of past 5,000 years of human warfare? Nonsense. Drones not only offer enormous utility, they do it while saving lives. The ability to hover on a target area for hours, sometimes up to a day, removing ambiguities over a potential target area by constant observation that a conventional fixed wing or helicopter strike would not afford you. They also can carry much lighter munitions than most conventional aircraft and can deliver them with greater precision reducing civilian casualties.

Anything that allows us to engage in acts of war without risk of casualties to our own people absolutely makes war far more horrible than it already is. Any act of war absolutely positively must come with at least that risk if not that certainty, or else war becomes too cheap and thus too easy to wage.
 
I fine both immoral. Drones are no where near accurate enough and is very likely to involve more civilians than combatants. Assassination is largely illegal, and something we don't want to I encourage.
 
Better to lose an expendable machine than an irreplaceable life.

That is a total lack of any moral code. Unlike WWII we do have to at least fig leaf a high moral ground position.

To many in the world drones show we are cowards who lack any concern for human life outside of our own.

We also seem bipolar in our anti-terror policies, some we want to treat as criminals and try, some we assassinate, along with a dozen or so civilians.
 
Anything that allows us to engage in acts of war without risk of casualties to our own people absolutely makes war far more horrible than it already is. Any act of war absolutely positively must come with at least that risk if not that certainty, or else war becomes too cheap and thus too easy to wage.

I don't mind making war easier to wage, for us. I don't buy into this masochistic notion that the only way we are allowed to engage in conflict or war is if we have some blood offering to put on the side. Should we have our troops take off their body armor? Get rid of MRAPS? We do everything possible to reduce and avoid casualties, and we're supposed to stop at the goal line because it means... we'll have succeeded? It's ludicrous. I don't mind if we can fight in Mali or Afghanistan or wherever it may be without risk of harm to ourselves or our allies.
 
I fine both immoral. Drones are no where near accurate enough and is very likely to involve more civilians than combatants. Assassination is largely illegal, and something we don't want to I encourage.

Drones are a delivery vehicle, they are not 'accurate' or 'inaccurate' they just fly. What they do allow for however is much greater precision in planning strikes because they can hover on targets for long periods of time, can use smaller munitions, and allow closer observation on strikes. They are as a weapons platform more accurate than anything else we have to use in that category.
 
That is a total lack of any moral code. Unlike WWII we do have to at least fig leaf a high moral ground position.

To many in the world drones show we are cowards who lack any concern for human life outside of our own.

We also seem bipolar in our anti-terror policies, some we want to treat as criminals and try, some we assassinate, along with a dozen or so civilians.

I don't care if Islamist savages in foothills of the Hindu Kush find us cowardly. The point is to kill them, not to win their esteem. Moreover your dig about killing civilians is part and parcel of the misconception about drones and the impact on civilians, relatively few civilians have been killed when compared to the number of strikes carried out, and definitely when compared to Pakistani military offensives.
 
I don't mind making war easier to wage, for us. I don't buy into this masochistic notion that the only way we are allowed to engage in conflict or war is if we have some blood offering to put on the side. Should we have our troops take off their body armor? Get rid of MRAPS? We do everything possible to reduce and avoid casualties, and we're supposed to stop at the goal line because it means... we'll have succeeded? It's ludicrous. I don't mind if we can fight in Mali or Afghanistan or wherever it may be without risk of harm to ourselves or our allies.

There is a distinct and powerful difference between using technology to protect our troops and/or make them more effective and using technology to remove them from the equation altogether.

Governments wage too much war as it is. If one or more sides are able to factor out the human cost I shudder to think what would result.
 
I don't care if Islamist savages in foothills of the Hindu Kush find us cowardly. The point is to kill them, not to win their esteem. Moreover your dig about killing civilians is part and parcel of the misconception about drones and the impact on civilians, relatively few civilians have been killed when compared to the number of strikes carried out, and definitely when compared to Pakistani military offensives.

Ahh but again you should. First it isn't just those folks who see us as cowards, the rest of the world knows about drone strikes and can form an opinion. Second killing leaders doesn't stop an idea only ending the idea's hold on the people does. Drones can't do the later.

Relatively few, what a nice meaningless phrase to attempt to cover needless civilian deaths, as many in the Muslim world see it.

Compared to the Pakistan army??? are you serious??? Since when is the bar what the Pakistan army does???
 
There is a distinct and powerful difference between using technology to protect our troops and/or make them more effective and using technology to remove them from the equation altogether.

Governments wage too much war as it is. If one or more sides are able to factor out the human cost I shudder to think what would result.

The waging of war, both on an interstate and intrastate level has been declining rapidly for decades and despite the aberrant rise of the War on Terror and its associated conflicts this trend shows no signs of halting. The removal or reduction of the human footprint on conflict and war moreover is inevitable. I'm glad that the United States is far and away the leader of this technology, and I hope we retain our edge as I'm not passive in my judgement of nations and the trajectory of the future. I pick sides, and I desire US led democratic hegemony on the planet.
 
Ahh but again you should. First it isn't just those folks who see us as cowards, the rest of the world knows about drone strikes and can form an opinion. Second killing leaders doesn't stop an idea only ending the idea's hold on the people does. Drones can't do the later.

Relatively few, what a nice meaningless phrase to attempt to cover needless civilian deaths, as many in the Muslim world see it.

Compared to the Pakistan army??? are you serious??? Since when is the bar what the Pakistan army does???

1. The 'rest of the world' is an overly broad category, but the formation of negative opinions on US policy is inevitable almost regardless of what kind of action we take. Especially from other Western and developed circles where such agitation is popular but ultimately harmless. And that's what it really is: harmless. We are the hegemon and we attract reflexively negative sentiment, but it does not really impact our ability to act or our station in the world. Especially since we reap the advantage of being a democratic leader, with the capacity to hit popular reset with every new administration.

2. They aren't 'needless' they are the cost of waging war, a war that is in fact moral, just, and necessary. Aside from being a direct, vocal, and proven threat and enemy of the United States and our allies, these militants and terrorists are the most regressive enemies of civilization and modernity. In the name of the most basic liberal and internationalist obligations that I believe we should hold ourselves to we should be suppressing these people. In the name of everything from democracy to feminism to security. Moreover much of the world see's drones and our activities in the way that you describe, because people like you in the West insist on describing it that way.

3. The point is relevant since drone strikes primarily take place in NWFP, Waziristan, Swat, etc. areas that previously were subject to major Pakistani military offensives. Drone strikes even in isolation have inflicted very few civilian fatalities, but when related to the kind of violence these regions have seen it is positively minuscule.

3.
 
I am not a fan of drones because what we have not bought up in this thread is drone proliferation. We are using drones right now and within the next decade or so, everyone is going to be using drones. The problems come in when (and if) they adopt the same policies as we have currently where we allow ourselves to go out and assassinate people on the basis of them being that oh-so subjective term: terrorist. Thus, I don't think we should really be using drones in the manner we currently are as it could turn against us quite soon. How would any of you feel if a Chinese or Russian drone was over in US airspace to assassinate someone their governments did not like?
 
Yes,

This technology was created in an effort to reduce civilian casualties. Instead of sending a heavily armed army in to hunt down someone, a drone strike is sent in for a precision strike. This, in effect, reduces collateral damage and casualties on our own side.
 
The waging of war, both on an interstate and intrastate level has been declining rapidly for decades

I think it's more like media coverage of war has declined rapidly for decades. There have been wholesale slaughters that have, for all intents and purposes, gone practically unnoticed.

The removal or reduction of the human footprint on conflict and war moreover is inevitable.

That may well be, but inevitability is not the same thing as morality.

I'm glad that the United States is far and away the leader of this technology, and I hope we retain our edge as I'm not passive in my judgement of nations and the trajectory of the future. I pick sides, and I desire US led democratic hegemony on the planet.

You wish for us to reign supreme over the world without a human cost to our side. You wish us to dominate because we have better gadgets rather than better strategy, robots rather than troops that are better equipped and better trained, joysticks in place of diplomats and statesman. You would like for us to be able to push a button and achieve any end we wish. You would like us to own the world because we have better toys rather than superior commitment or even a superior argument.

Thanks, but no thanks. I do not think war is romantic, I do not think bloodshed is somehow magically noble in and of itself, I don't live and die by silly visualizations like watering the tree of liberty with the blood sacrifices of tyrants. More than any of that, I do not think war should amount to a button-click, where the cost of victory is something which is invoiced rather than mourned.

The simple fact of the matter is that I am not now nor will I ever be a microwave patriot.
 
Drones are a delivery vehicle, they are not 'accurate' or 'inaccurate' they just fly. What they do allow for however is much greater precision in planning strikes because they can hover on targets for long periods of time, can use smaller munitions, and allow closer observation on strikes. They are as a weapons platform more accurate than anything else we have to use in that category.

Of course I said not accurate enough, in terms of civilian deaths. I was not making a comparison to other systems.
 
I am not a fan of drones because what we have not bought up in this thread is drone proliferation. We are using drones right now and within the next decade or so, everyone is going to be using drones. The problems come in when (and if) they adopt the same policies as we have currently where we allow ourselves to go out and assassinate people on the basis of them being that oh-so subjective term: terrorist. Thus, I don't think we should really be using drones in the manner we currently are as it could turn against us quite soon. How would any of you feel if a Chinese or Russian drone was over in US airspace to assassinate someone their governments did not like?

Well I think I'd address this in two ways:

1. The proliferation of drones and/or autonomous technology is as inevitable as the spread of any kind of conventional military technology. You can delay it by limiting exposure and use and thus lulling rivals as to their true utility as has been done in the past, but their acquisition is inevitable.

2. Talking about the proliferation of cross-border raids and activities is more plausible I think but again is reduced as a 'concern' by two factors. One being the highly, highly, contextualized basis for US activities in places like Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, etc. It is unlikely that Russia or China would get the same relative leeway for cross border raids into their neighbors territory as the US by and large has received. The second is related to the first in that it is mostly inevitable. If it is going to happen, it will happen. The use of a drone to cross a frontier and launch an attack is not different from a political standpoint of sending a fixed wing aircraft across a frontier to attack a target. Drones wont change that.

3. Hitting someone in the US with a drone is just as implausible as using anything else.
 
I think it's more like media coverage of war has declined rapidly for decades. There have been wholesale slaughters that have, for all intents and purposes, gone practically unnoticed.



That may well be, but inevitability is not the same thing as morality.



You wish for us to reign supreme over the world without a human cost to our side. You wish us to dominate because we have better gadgets rather than better strategy, robots rather than troops that are better equipped and better trained, joysticks in place of diplomats and statesman. You would like for us to be able to push a button and achieve any end we wish. You would like us to own the world because we have better toys rather than superior commitment or even a superior argument.

Thanks, but no thanks. I do not think war is romantic, I do not think bloodshed is somehow magically noble in and of itself, I don't live and die by silly visualizations like watering the tree of liberty with the blood sacrifices of tyrants. More than any of that, I do not think war should amount to a button-click, where the cost of victory is something which is invoiced rather than mourned.

The simple fact of the matter is that I am not now nor will I ever be a microwave patriot.

Of course I desire for us to be victorious and to achieve our ends without suffering casualties or loss. I'm not a masochist. Our victories and achievements are no less important because they came without some blood offering. Yes to everything you said. I would be thrilled with robotic soldiers and combat vehicles, and the reduction or removal of the human element in combat. It is not likely to happen in the immediate future, but it is inevitable in the long term.
 
Back
Top Bottom