Drones are now a staple of the
Consider the case for armed drones when it is phrased as such “automated machine for slaughtering 3rd world occupants”.[1] This argument suggests that the prosperity of the west allows the waging of an extremely low risk, low casualty war against a people incapable of offering the slightest resistance to such devices. Is this not merely slaughter rather than ‘war’?
The cost of war is typically measured by the casually count incurred. Kunz notes that “Taking away the human element reduces incentive to avoid war”.[2] As technology advances, and UAVs become the norm, rather than the exception, can we expect a more passé public reaction to conflict situations? Perhaps it is already happening, the anti-war lobby at the unfolding of the
Perhaps the darkest aspect to the ethical debate is the issue of artificial intelligence error. Writing in the Journal of Applied Philosophy, Robert Sparrow asks “who we should hold responsible when an autonomous weapon system is involved in an atrocity of the sort that would normally be described as a war crime.” Indeed it is difficult to assess who is an innocent, or who is a enemy from thousands of feet above ground. This is brought home whenever one hears news stories of wedding parties been obliterated because the military mistook the large gathering of people for a terrorist gathering.
These ethical concerns seem to be disregarded by governments and militaries. Militaries appreciate the low-casualty benefit of these devices and are developing them further. This week
