Application of Technologies of War, Terror, Police - Assignment Example

Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Technologies of War, Terror, Police 1 Executive summary 1 1.0 Introduction 2 2.0 Definition 2 3.0 Results & Discussion 4 3.1 The current ethical controversy 4 3.1.1 Just War and counterterror War 4 3.2 history of ethical controversy 6 3.3 possible strategies for developing the technology ethically in future 7 4.0 Conclusion 7 References 8 Technologies of War, Terror, Police Executive summary In order to understand the ethical implications of drones as a form of technology of war, it is important to broadly define drones and evaluate it further in relation to the prevailing controversies. This paper therefore defines the drone technology in wider perspective and further elaborates current ethical controversies that are associated with the technology. The paper looks at counterterrorism war and just war as the current ethical controversy, the history of ethical controversy and possible strategies for developing drone technology ethically in future. 1.0 Introduction Since 21st century, there have been enhanced warfare’s methods which can lately be viewed as issues stretching the extent of using international law and international humanitarian law. As this continues, several ethical controversies relating to technologies use in war related events have come up. Such controversies have been raised regarding the applicability of drones for military reasons. In order to understand standpoints from scholars, concerning drones’ ethical implication as a technology in fighting terror, surveillance and war, definitions of drones and ethics need to be set forward. 2.0 Definition To start with, Nigel (2002, p. 62) defines ethics as being aware of the need to do things according to people’s needs. Herman and McChesney (2000, p. 56) define ethics as acknowledgement of human dignity at its most fundamental structure. Drone can generally be defined as unmanned aerial aircraft or vehicle that either enhanced independently following pre-programmed mission or controlled by pilots from the ground. Drones have the opportunity of giving perfect instrument for system of war. Red Cross International Conference and Red Crescent suggested several ethical controversies. In the conference, Red Crescent and Red Cross International Conference argued that the context in which drones are employed does not respect human dignity. They argued that the technology increases conflict apart from conducting hostilities in armed conflicts. By providing specific example that relates to America and Afghanistan war, the conference suggested that the missions that employ drones qualify to be armed conflicts of global nature since it compromises human dignity. Mr. Christof Heynes, a special reporter for United Nation, while attending Geneva conference that was organized by Civil Liberties Union of America on arbitrary executions and extrajudicial killings, explained the ethical controversies relating to the use of drones by superpower nations such as America and Russia. He argued that lack of transparency in drone attacks that prevail currently promotes a culture of disrespect to long-established humanitarian law and human rights (Sassoli, 1999 p.87). For instance, several serious questions have be raised on why drones are employed in targeting military surveillance and objectives in relation to the distinction law and prevention of random attacks on innocent civilians. Mr. Christof suggested that drones are technologies that are prone to errors. Therefore there have been scenarios in which drones zooming that approached the speed of sound and hundreds of meters above the sea level were not precise. This made more than 895 innocent citizens to be targeted mistakenly by shrapnel shower of a drone. According to Pakistan’s Human rights Commission reports, ethics of human dignity has been contained via the use of drones. Statistically, it was reported by the commission that approximately 987 Pakistan civilians died in 132 drone airstrikes in the year 2010 alone. The main reason for employing drones was to fight terrorism. It is believed that the term `war on terror’ has been an excuse of conquering non-states actors. Besides, similar report claims that incidental civilian causalities, brought about by drones, have in many cases over power direct military intentions needed. In addition, targeting military objectives in civilian populated areas has in many cases been considered unethical. 3.0 Results & Discussion 3.1 The current ethical controversy 3.1.1 Just War and counterterror War Of late, many researchers are debating on whether counterterror war, employed mostly by U.S. government, is just or not. According to Crawford (2003, P.20) a war can only be just if its cause and conduct are fair. Counterterror war can be just if the strategy employed avoids militarism’s excesses. It is believed that justice of cause and of limited ends is at risk of being refuted by unfairness of inappropriate ways and excessive ends. Different from World War II and previous just wars, counterterror war can only be conducted fairly if strategies employed are in line with legal and ethical standards. Crawford (2003, P.20) further argues that even though there is a possibility for a nation to fight in self-defense, terrorism and counterterrorism characters in current military-technical context makes it hard for a nation to undertake just counterterror war. As it is claimed in the Bush regime, terrorism, as conducted by al Qaeda and other postmodern terrorists, is mainly a new type of war. The vulnerability of developed nations to terrorism implies that they should be vigilant all the time. It is always appropriate for nations to employ self-defense in case of any kind of terrorism. However, when ethics of self are widely defined and the kind of terrorist strategies are considered, it is possible to differentiate between defense and offense, peace and war, noncombatants and combatants. In this situation, it is always hard to proportionately employ force and to discriminate between civilians and enemies. More so, the logic of imminent danger implies that there is always pressure on time. Therefore, it can be noted that it is hard to fight counterterror war justly if the tactics entail the use of heavy military force (Crawford 2003, P.20). Many industrialized nations such as China and United States of America are currently employing drone technology to fight counterterror war. However, the use of this technology has raised several ethical concerns. Several ethical questions have been raised regarding the manner in which drones are transforming modern warfare. In Pakistan alone, the number of U.S. drone strike has enhanced from fifty two under Bush regime to two hundred and eighty two under the current Obama regime. For the past three years 2,200 innocent civilians have been killed by drones in Pakistan. Similar to nuclear weapons, drones have changed war and its ethical calculus (Pape & Feldman, 2010 P. 198). Drones allow warfare of targeted assassinations. The use of drone in counterterror war risks the lives of fewer Americans. However, the technology normally crosses ethical line particularly on the targeted killings. Drones usage, particularly by the United States of America, normally results in unfair killings. Many innocent civilians, children and women included, are normally killed by drone strikes. This therefore raises ethical question of whether there is a line between necessary killings and war crimes. It is essential for nations to stand with the idea that justice should be conducted fairly in law courts rather than via contests of might (Finkelstein and Ohlin, 2012 P. 386). 3.2 history of ethical controversy The character of war has changed over years. The strategies employed in counterterror war rest on the assumption that war has transformed. War has for along time remained the application of military force by political institutions. It has always been driven by political, economic and religious objectives. Practices of war are believed to have changed overtime. Understanding the manner in which and the extent to which military force should be used has changed overtime since the introduction of gunpowder, long-bow and atomic bomb. Social innovations such as conscription, nation building and nationalisms transformed state capacity and mobilization. Normative innovations, such as agreement on noncombatants’ treatment and laws of war, changed expectations regarding conduct (Newman, 2012, P 22). In late 1980s and 1990s, several observers started evaluating uprising in military affairs, which entailed cyber war, infor-war and smart weapons that changed the entire battlefield environment. It was also in these periods that the act of terrorism became rampant. In September 11, 2001, the United States of America experienced serious bomb assault, which al Qaeda militants later claimed to be responsible. This attack was understood and framed immediately by the U.S. Since the terrorists intentionally aimed and killed several noncombatants. The assault was observed by Bush government as wicked and immoral. It was viewed as unjustified aggression. The United States of America therefore, framed its counterterrorism effort in terms of just war by developing legal and ethical claim of self-defense right (Naftali 2006, P.230). Drones were initially introduced during World War 1 but were highly condemned as being imprecise and unreliable. They were also employed in Vietnam War but failed to sale until the 1990s conflicts. The 1990s conflicts, which entailed Bosnian War and Operation Desert Storm, enhanced the need for drone technology. Before September 11, 2001 the use of Drone was controversial since many departments in law enforcement or military did not want either the responsibility burden or cost of unmanned aerial vehicle program. Currently the U.S government is heavily employing drone in fight against terrorism (Finkelstein and Ohlin, 2012 P. 389). 3.3 possible strategies for developing the technology ethically in future It is important to note that ethical responsibility should be jointly borne by technological artifact and humans. Several strategies should be employed in developing ethical drone technology in future. Drone should be designed in such a way that it shapes the decisions of life and death. Engineer should therefore have the mandate of developing ethics in user interface. The interface should be designed in such a way that it facilitates killing where it is worth and discourages it where it is not justifiable. Engineers need to develop good sensors and interfaces that provide operator essential ethical information. The ethical information should be related to combat situation. Drone technology can also be made ethical through counteracting ethical buffers creation among pilots and their actions (Newman, 2012 P. 11). 4.0 Conclusion From the discussion, it is clear that to understand standpoints from scholars concerning drones’ ethical implication, it is important to set forward the definition of drone and its ethical requirement. War can only be just if its cause and conduct are fair. Counterterror war can be just if the strategy employed avoids militarism’s excesses. Drone should be designed in such a way that it shapes the decisions of life and death. References Crawford, N. 2003. Just War Theory and the U.S. Counterterror War. Herman, P. & McChesney, C. 2000, ‘The Global Media: The New Missionaries of Corporate Capitalism, London: Cassell, Review, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 31-55. Nagel, T.H. 2002, ‘What Does It All Mean? New York: Oxford University Press, vol. 21, p. 62. Newman, C. 2012. ‘Moralization’ of Technologies – Military Drones: A Case Study. Owen B.R. 2012. ‘Drone strikes threaten 50 years of International Law’. Journal of Contemporary Practice in International Humanitarian Law vol. 3, viewed 6 October 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/21/drone--‐strikes--‐international--‐law--‐un?newsfeed=true Sassoli, M.P. 1999, ‘How Does Law Protect in War: Cases Documents and Teaching Materials on Contemporary Practice in International Humanitarian Law’. Geneva: Review, vol. 6, no. 12, pp.17. The 30th Red Cross International Conference and Red Crescent. 2007, ‘International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Review, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 11-56. Naftali, Tim. 2006. Blind Spot: The Secret History of American Counterterrorism. Basic Books Pape, Robert and Feldman, James. 2010. Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It. University of Chicago Press. Finkelstein, Claire and Ohlin, David. 2012. Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World. Oxford University Press. Read More