The Drone Debate

A drone policy paper was "leaked" recently from the Obama administration appearing to give a protocol to take out American citizens who are considered to be dangerous and commiting treason. This appears to be upsetting people from both sides but I would like to take a different look at it. Right now we can go to Yemen and take out Americans who break our laws, how would we like it if China was sending drones into California to take out Chinese dissidents?

I think drones are problematic in a variety of ways:

a) It's a sovereignty loophole. Sending a manned aircraft into another country's air space would be a clear violation. Nobody
seems to care, since we're talking about Afghanis and Yemenis.

b) I think it cheapens the practice of warfare. I think the use of technology instead of people causes policy and decision makers
to think less critically and carefully. (would you allow your investment portfolio to be managed by a trading program?)


Sure - I understand the benefits --- machines are easier to replace than people (and less traumatic to lose). However, when we cheapen the "cost" of warfare - I think we're missing out on some serious and essential moral dilemmas.

What is moral about war?

War is 'won' by demonstrating superior physical power, by killing more of the other side/causing more damage than they kill/damage on yours.

If we are not in the war to win it, we shouldn't be in the war at all.

IMO

in which case - why would we outlaw chemical weapons and/or WMD?

After all - those are tools for demonstrating superior physical power, by killing more of the other side......

The existence of the Geneva Conventions, in addition to the existence of the UN Security Council suggests to me that
there's a moral dimension to the conduct of war.

Finally - take a look at the Air Force Academy's core curriculum. It includes Philosophy 310 - which is a course about ethics.

Maybe about morals of war. I had one of my college prof's who said chemical and biological weapons were banned because they were too hard to control, wind blows the wrong way...

So if we're fine with letting one man (Obama) target and kill anyone he wishes anywhere in the world (if he percieves a threat of course), what will we do when some other country(s) believe they are being threatened by some person or group on our soil and send drones here to hunt them down?

And how many people did we capture in the last four years? Maybe it's just cleaner to kill them instead of capture and interrogating them... and maybe it's what civilized Nobel Prize winners do.

It is a lot cheaper to shoot a $70K Hellfire missile at them than detain them in Gitmo, and/or provide them with paid legal representation.

So Barack can be fiscally conservative if he wants to be.

OK....here is a parallel take......We are not in a traditional declared war.....that is Congress never declared war on any nation state as I know the definition. ALSO in Viet Nam we were in an undeclared war......sort of a police action.

That given, a thought to ponder, IF we had had the tech as we do today, would we have put a hellfire up Janes rear guard ?? She was obviously an American citizen aiding our enemies.......extrapolate.....would we have sent drones to Canada to seek the citizen draft dodgers in their "protected" environs.........think it over.
AND would the AG have spun a memo CYA to protect Kennedy and Johnson (that is for sure IMHO).

Basically the President can justify anything the people let him get away with...........Germany circa 1935. OH......BTW gun control is aligned with drones........get it ??

deltamrey wrote: OK....here is a parallel take......We are not in a traditional declared war.....that is Congress never declared war on any nation state as I know the definition. ALSO in Viet Nam we were in an undeclared war......sort of a police action.

That given, a thought to ponder, IF we had had the tech as we do today, would we have put a hellfire up Janes rear guard ?? She was obviously an American citizen aiding our enemies.......extrapolate.....would we have sent drones to Canada to seek the citizen draft dodgers in their "protected" environs.........think it over.
AND would the AG have spun a memo CYA to protect Kennedy and Johnson (that is for sure IMHO).

Basically the President can justify anything the people let him get away with...........Germany circa 1935. OH......BTW gun control is aligned with drones........get it ??

WELL, let's see now.......I believe the above thought is a MACRO perspective, which is rare these days......a myopic mindset is more
the norm. (FWIW......I agree with the post and the Viet Nam issue is pretty relevant in today's time-frame.)

The very SIMPLE truth is this......there is/has been/will be "collateral damage" and the drones make war.....clean, antiseptic and
bloodless.......the torn bodies and pools of blood are NOT part of the "arena of war"......makes it oh so much easier to wage war.
(Sit behind a screen, follow the "bouncing ball" and push a button......ANTISEPTIC ANNIHILATION........JMO