With such high civilian casualties, should drones be used in U.S. military?
Sharkey, Noel. "The Automation And Proliferation Of Military Drones And The Protection Of Civilians." Law, Innovation & Technology3.2 (2011): 229-240. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.
This article focused on multiple ideas, but I honed in on when it began talking about civilian casualties. The article believed in war, in order to when, casualties are minor damage that will happen regardless. The article stated that a war can not be won by playing morally. So, things will be unfair and deadly, but it is a part of war. Though there are arguments if drones should be used without declaring war, drones are still being funded to be made and used to monitor targeted people.
I understand more that drones are needed to bring more troops home to their families. The article stressed that civilian lives will always be lost to the use of drones, but the lives lost now are no different than lives that were lost to tanks firing during World War II. These numbers are no different than usual numbers of casualties throughout history, if anything, the numbers are dwindling because of drone accuracy. The reason, that the article listed, as to why these innocent lives are lost is because the people that are targeted surround themselves among civilians. I do not have any new ideas about this topic, but rather a new realization of why drones are used and the reason behind casualties. I agree more with that drones are useful and should be allowed usage without declaration of war. But I still need more evidence to win my heart over with the amount of innocent lives lost to the usage. I understand why there are numbers, but it does not cancel the fact that the people that we are fighting for and trying to protect are dying by our hands, not whom we target against. In a way, this article answered my question of the usage of drones and giving me more back story to my previous post. I guess I am being more close minded on what the bigger picture of keeping innocents safe by losing some in the art of war. I guess I need to take the standing for what it is versus what I wish it to be.
This source allowed me to answer my previous post of the number of civilian deaths. I picked this article to answer my new question to understand this all more fully. As for pilot's mental health, I can see where their stress is different of troops on the ground. These pilots are dealing with "playing war" throughout the day at work, while also coming home at night and having to get in their family mindset without alerting the family of change in behavior. The troops get to come home and out of war to be peaceful, but we are still not at peace, but using drones to monitor and survey to use drastic measures when needed or forced to. I would ask others of their take on when is war fully over and what is considered "at war" with a country by the measures we use against them. I agree more with this article as to seeing a more broader picture with the realization that we as a country are not trying lose innocent lives, but rather it is those who we target's fault for these lives lost.
A question I wish to ask more of is how the use of the drones effect the countries we use them in versus using troops. The right question would be that if troops monitoring villages cause more hostility or the use of an unseen aircraft causes more hostility for villages in high risk. I have answer my questions on how drones affect their pilots and how innocent lives are lost so easily but are no jump in statistics throughout history. They all work together with the idea "if drones are an ethical solution over troops on the ground."
No comments:
Post a Comment