Essay On Ethics In War

In recent years technology has begun to grow at an astounding rate. Within the article “The Pentagon’s ‘Terminator conundrum” one such advancement in technology is discussed, describing the utilization of autonomous weapons within the military and the possibility of utilizing them to supersede human soldiers. While such technology seems like it wouldn’t be feasible till the distant future, the concept is presently being tested in military based drones within the pentagon. Some people disagree with the notion of giving machines the competency to make autonomous decisions on the battlefield, particularly the use of lethal force, believing machines aren’t trustworthy and could result in greater loss of life. If we were to ask an ancient philosopher

The changing face of conflict has brought about an evolution on how we conduct and even think about warfare. Gross (2010) states that assassination was once prohibited under the statutes of international law but has increasingly become common in the modern day battlefield. A dilemma is presented when we question is there any ethical basis of using assassination as a tool of modern warfare. There is increasing realization that one cannot engage in war using the conventional means. Terrorism and insurgence being the new methods employed in modern warfare mean fighting using conventional rules puts one at a major disadvantage. The killing of Osama Bin Laden according to White (2012) can be termed as an assassination; it was executed by a special

In the world we live in, people are consumed by violence and war as nations conflict to achieve victory and change. However, these changes come with a price, the lives of innocent people and the destruction of their homes. Because of this, massive amounts of innocent lives account for casualties. Thus, the controversy behind it causes a lot of debate between whether or not the amount of collateral damage allowed by the Rules of Engagement should be greater or lesser. Some argue that the insurgents of war the United States are fighting are only trying to camouflauge themselves among the non-combatant civilians only to get away with their crimes against us. On the other hand, the opposition argues that killing these innocent people only results in more distance in

The use of drones for carrying out military attacks is an important current topic. While keeping our soldiers safe is a primary concern, sparing the lives of civilians and limiting the destruction of the local infrastructure is another concern from not only a rebuilding point of view, but also from an ethical point of view. In the article “The Drone Wars: International Law Will Not Make Them Humane” the authors discuss the history of technological advances in warfare and provide details of the factors that have keep these advances under control. This article was co-authored by two individuals, Arthur Herman who is a historian and John Yoo who is a law professor. Through the use of examples from history detailing the use of technology in warfare,

In 2002, the CIA used a predator drone to conduct the first targeted killing. The strike was meant for Osama bin Laden; instead, it wound up; killing numerous civilians that were gathering scrap metal at the time. At the time, the government skirted the issue, claiming that the other individuals killed would prove to be ‘interesting’ once their identities were revealed. They weren’t. However, drone strikes occur today with civilian casualties, and there’s little to no public outcry. The public has grown numb and complacent due to prolonged exposure to a type of warfare that most academics agree is illegal at best.

In recent history, the United States has progressively become a more technologically advanced military with the capability to conduct war-fighting with sophisticated equipment to include robots, UAVs, Tomahawks, and nuclear warheads. These weapons are used to reduce American casualties and can be controlled from a computer on the other side of the world. Although these technologic advancements are undoubtedly impressive, hundreds of military and civilian leaders have argued over the morality of using these weapons to accomplish mission success. However, The United States’ increasing reliance on technology and unmanned weapon systems is morally and ethically acceptable under the Just War’s Jus

“Dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, US transit systems, European cities, and our troops in Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives” (Gerdau 1). These are the words of President Obama as he spoke on the effective use of the United States drone program. Drone operations have been in effect since our nation was targeted by al Qaeda in 2001. Anything that threatens American lives is undesirable; therefore, drone strikes against terrorists should continue to be utilized by the American government. In today’s society, our nation is threatened by foreign and domestic attacks from anti-American terrorist organizations. The government’s use of drones has drastically reduced this threat by decimating terrorist cells abroad.

“There is no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war, except its ending” (Abraham Lincoln). When I look at the world today, watch the news, or listen to the radio – I am often disheartened by the amount of violence I witness arise in our society. Recently, acts of hate and hostility have been exhibited all around, and alas have become a common occurrence. With the world so filled with violence, is it necessary to implement and build new weapons that make murder less difficult? A recent invention entitled a drone has sadly become a general weapon used in war. A drone is a human operated aircraft that makes killing impersonal and blinding to the pilot. When drones are utilized in violent situations, there are many civilian casualties. Drones should not be used as a weapon in warfare because they are an immoral and unsentimental device used to take away human life.

Clausewitz mentions in his manuscript “On War” how battle is a mixture of different tiers, such as emotion, chance, and rationality. These concepts would become less involved with war if we were to remove our human counterparts and replace them with robotic ones. Already there has been instances where the drones have done more harm than good, according to a study done by human rights experts at New York and Stanford Universities. 2,300 militants were killed by one these strikes, 2.3 percent of whom were the only high target threats. This ties into the belief that had a strike not been called at all, and a different route had been taken with boots on the ground, not so many unnecessary lives would have been lost. Add into the account that there have been women and children killed in said strikes, and the moral compass tends to turn toward a less mechanical way of dealing with our

This essay will explore this moral issue by assessing the identity and purpose of a weapon, and how they are used in modern day applications. The essay will highlight the conflicting nature of this field of engineering by examining the NSPE Code of Ethics, as well as analyzing the conflict from various ethical theories that have been covered in ENGR 482, followed by focusing on several weapons system projects that are paradigm examples for this moral issue. To conclude the essay, I will present my opinion on the matter, defended with my personal ethics accompanied with the ethical theories taught in this course.

This war has reached a point where it is necessary to seek the means to a quick end with as little lives lost as possible. While the option exists to end the war with certain mass destruction and death, it is my job to inform you, ethically, of the rationale behind seeking such a course of action. Understandably, the war has dragged on for years. Families have lost loved ones, children today are not sure if they will see their father come home tomorrow, and our country is restricted in growth while our military is plundering through resources. While it easy to remain entangled in the self interest of our own country, it must not be forgotten that the enemy continues to experience the loss of their own countrymen. Looking at the issue from a moral perspective, it is irrelevant to hold one sovereign country or humans’ identity in a higher regard. You must understand that all human life is equivalent in the eyes of the world. Furthermore, with such great power comes a moral obligation to hold the best interests of the entire global community as your highest priority. Therefore, to obtain the moral outcome with the least lives slayed you must seek to end the war shortly by using the military technology at your disposal. I understand the loss of live will be

Since the use of drones has been used on a much larger scale in the United States military, there has been some skepticism regarding the ethical implication of such machines in recent years (Source H). While 62% of Americans approve of the use of drone strikes other countries are in strong opposition of the handling of drones, such as China and Japan. However recent statistics have shown that drones execute fewer civilians than any other military weapon to date. Not only are they cheaper than traditional aircraft, but they also significantly decrease the risk of soldiers developing PTSD over the course of their service. (Source J).

The power as well as the precision of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.” Jus in bello believes that just war conduct should be governed by the ‘distinction’. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian homes or residential areas that include no military targets and committing acts of terrorism against civilians. Moreover, combatants are not permitted to use violence against enemy combatants who have surrendered or who have been captured or who are injured and not presenting an immediate threat to life. Just war conduct should also be governed by the principle of proportionality. An attack cannot be launched on a military objective while knowing that the civilian injuries would be so much that the military advantage would not be worth it. Minimal force or military necessity should be taken into account during a just war. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the known and direct

The age of the robot warrior machine is looming, and it represents monumental changes in the future conduct of war. Increased precision and decreased risk make the automation of warriors both politically and militarily attractive. In the future, government and military leaders will have to address the numerous moral and ethical questions concerning when, where and how to utilize these lifeless soldiers. In the past, many leaders relied on the military theory from the Prussian theorist Carl Von Clausewitz’ book “On War” to answer similar questions. Even though his theories have formerly provided guidance, can the ideas written in the 1800’s, truly be useful when applied to such drastic changes in the future conduct of war.

Strawser has plunged into the debate by arguing "It's all upside. There's no downside. Both ethically and normatively, there's a tremendous value," he says. "You're not risking the pilot. The pilot is safe. And all the empirical evidence shows that drones tend to be more accurate. We need to shift the burden of the argument to the other side. Why not do this? The positive reasons are overwhelming at this point. This is the future of all air warfare. At least for the US."