Rhetoric and the use of language within the ethical and political debates surrounding the use of drones and militarized robots seems to be a dominating factor in deciding whether the use of drones is considered just or in finding loop holes to international policy and overall common sense. I am not at all surprised by most of what I am reading rather, I am interested in seeing how the discourse surrounding the use of robots presents itself within these military and political spheres. What signifies a just war? Realistically what are the ethical responsibilities of governments, militaries, and soldiers when engaging in combat? What are those of autonomous robots, if any?
If we are participating in warfare in territories that we are not at war with and use drones as a loophole because there are not soldiers engaging in “direct” combat, how are we respecting the laws and rules of warfare, how are we then engaging in just war? We aren’t, especially at the expense of innocent civilians. But as we see the rhetoric initially put forth by the Bush administration for a global war on terror, makes it seem that this act is justified, at least to the general public who feels that they must make compromises for their safety.
Drone attacks are responsible for an escalation in civilian deaths and are not as effective as are reported, yet the military and government uses this propaganda that they do the exact opposite and save lives by preventing civilian deaths. There is not winning hearts and minds here because drone strikes are causing more turmoil in areas that already have reasons to be politically estranged from the US and this is just adding fuel tot he fire and in fact creating more. What then are the ramifications of such actions and would that not be considered just war?
This discussion of the proper use of drones is bizarre to me, because once you put these technologies out to be used, the intent is irrelevant because of what will occur with their negative use will outweigh and overpower that which will be used for “good” purposes. The military is not a do good entity, in fact its existence is to kill enemies, but who are enemies? how are they created? what then happens when there are too many enemies and too many robots? This is not a fantasy that we live in and the way that it is framed, as a computerized and mechanical mechanism that protects humans completely disregards people on the other side of the machine, on the side of atrocity and death. It’s a doomsday waiting to happen, because more and more these technologies or micro versions are being used by governments such as the USA to monitor and control its own people.
I feel like I am left with more moral, political and social questions than answers and an never ending feeling that these discourses will never end in ways that honor human life and unity rather the idea that policy and political agreements made in disregard to actual humans and the needs of people over the nation-state apparatus and the militaries designed to protect those “sovereign” interests and the “rights” of the “sovereign.” These are just weapons of violence and control — we can ravel in the amazing technology behind its significance in the history of technological and digital advancement or equate it to that as destructive as a nuclear weapon and just as scary because these robots and drones are weapons serving the purpose to kill and the loopholes and rhetoric and propaganda are all creating a veil around it and finding ways to disguise it or wrap it up and serve as a christmas present. It’s just very bizarre to me and reading these articles makes it seem that much more bizarre and leaves me with more questions about the systems we are buying into.
Digital War 2016 