Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 57
  1. #1
    IncGamers Member LozHinge the Unhinged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Tech Support! TECH SUPPORT!!
    BattleTag FTITCTAJ
    Posts
    6,997

    The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    Armed Drones
    Robot "Warriors"

    Is employing ways of "killing the enemy without risk to yourself" immoral?

    Or
    Is the idea of "artillery" immoral?

    Or
    Is it immoral to take cover whilst in a "fire fight"?

    Or
    Is Kevlar armour immoral?

    Are people really insane enough to be challenging the use of "remotes" and "robots" on ethical grounds?

    Does the process of making war on a technologically inferior enemy, at little risk to your own soldiers, inevitably lead to the situation we see now: the enemy strikes back at the only targets it can reach, e.g. civilian population centres.

    Is the answer a return to cavalry charges and hand-to-hand combat? Wars settled on the battlefield like in the good old days.

    The people who actually make war, the "leaders", have always employed remotes and robots to prosecute their wars - we call them soldiers, sailors, airmen - so why is it suddenly immoral to set the risk to life and limb to one further remove, making war safer both for leaders and armed forces personnel?



    Some random thoughts for you, brought to you by Coffee® and Time On My Hands©

  2. #2
    Europe Trade Moderator krischan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    33,197

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    In warfare, ethics is just applied by those who can afford it. It's thrown overboard as soon as applying it would cause a too great risk of losing.
    D3 Trading Forums: Europe - America
    Diablo Wiki / Arreat Summit / ATMA / Forum Rules / Adria
    You know I'm born to lose / and gambling is for fools / but that's the way I like it, baby / I don't want to live forever!

  3. #3
    IncGamers Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,687

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    The blowback you mentioned is pertinent, I think. Other than that, I think the real outrage is the unveiling of yet another giant (and very expensive) peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenis by our alpha male monkey lords. Very impressive, boys.

    It's embarrassing, really. All that money blown on RC toys for war games. This is a complex issue, obviously. For instance, how many lives could be saved with all that money? Suppose 10 soldiers are saved by having a billion dollar RC jet do the job for them. Meanwhile, 500 retired soldiers with PTSD off themselves at home (they could have used that money for counselling).

    Edit: maybe soon, mainstream nukes will be our salvation?
    Last edited by stillman; 27-04-2013 at 12:36.

  4. #4
    IncGamers Member Glurin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    965

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    "You don't win a war by dying for your country. You win by making the other bastard die for his."

    As true today as it ever was.

  5. #5
    IncGamers Member Ash Housewares's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Surrounded by Primitive Screwheads
    Posts
    21,990

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    warfare has always used the best technology available without fretting over morality

    only rarely have certain methods been agreed as out of bounds by belligerents

  6. #6
    D3 Monk Moderator kestegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    BattleTag kestegs-1550
    Posts
    47,569

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    I've never really understood why it was unethical to use technology to save lives.

    Glurin pretty much nailed it.

  7. #7
    IncGamers Member Stevinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    chicagoland
    Posts
    5,003

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    My annoyance with drones isn't about it being unfair to the people we're bombing, it's that it's made bombing so easy and casual, that we don't realize that we're dropping bombs on places with a lot of collateral damage. At least when people dropped the bombs they could say, hey, I'm not dropping this on a market with children, and regular families, just to get this one high value target.


    As drones get cheaper and cheaper, you'll see them all over the place, and as they progress, they'll get more and more independant of their masters. I suppose that's a good thing from a pocketbook point of view, but I think we should consider the possible side effects of this technology.


    So no, using them is not immoral. But since we don't only use them on our enemies, but also to patrol our cities, and the border, and more and more places everyday, we should be careful of what we're unleashing on ourselves. Paul's filibuster was making a mountain out of a molehill, because of course obama isn't going to bomb US citizens in the States, but that doesn't mean that as we get more comfortable with the tech, and the ebb and flow of terrorism doesn't mean we never will. Heck, this kid in boston showed us that several of our leaders didn't even want to mirandize him, so much that doing so was a scandal.

    I know that a lot of people's eyes glaze over after the quartering of soldiers bit, but the next several amendments are very important to what this country (and I would think any of yours) wants to be all about. Drones and terrorism (which I see differently from an actual war) touch on a lot of these.

    http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html

  8. #8
    IncGamers Member BobCox2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    UnderYourDoorMat
    BattleTag What Me Worry?
    Posts
    10,806

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    The Assyrians

    Beginning with the campaigns of Adad-nirari II from 911 BC,[1] it again became a great power over the next three centuries, overthrowing the Twenty-fifth dynasty of Egypt and conquering Egypt,[1] Babylonia, Elam, Urartu/Armenia, Media, Persia, Mannea, Gutium, Phoenicia/Canaan, Aramea (Syria), Arabia, Israel, Judah, Edom, Moab, Samarra, Cilicia, Cyprus, Chaldea, Nabatea, Commagene, Dilmun and the Hurrians, Sutu and Neo-Hittites, driving the Ethiopians and Nubians from Egypt,[1] defeating the Cimmerians and Scythians and exacting tribute from Phrygia, Magan and Punt among others.[1] After its fall, (between 612 BC and 605 BC), Assyria remained a province and Geo-political entity under the Babylonian, Median, Achaemenid, Seleucid, Parthian, Roman and Sassanid empires until the Arab Islamic invasion and conquest of Mesopotamia in the mid-7th century, when it was finally dissolved, after which the remnants of the Assyrian people (by now Christians) gradually becoming a minority in their homeland.



    Lesson One.

  9. #9
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,933

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Is employing ways of "killing the enemy without risk to yourself" immoral?
    No.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Is the idea of "artillery" immoral?
    No.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Is it immoral to take cover whilst in a "fire fight"?
    Well, I think it's a grand gesture for you Redcoats to stand up with your white cross-belt shining brightly in the sun.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Some random thoughts for you, brought to you by Coffee® and Time On My Hands©
    The Devil makes work for idle hands.

    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    In warfare, ethics is just applied by those who can afford it. It's thrown overboard as soon as applying it would cause a too great risk of losing.
    Just so. While I agree with Glurin, kris has nailed the underlying stupidity of our nanci-fied mentality. The French knights labeled English longbow-men immoral, because they couldn't duplicate their firepower. Muskets were labeled immoral, particularly in Japan, because they allowed someone barely better than a peasant with little training to snuff a warrior who took a lifetime to train and fortune to equip.

    Perfect case in point: Lady Diana, Princess of Wales. Now, I thought the world of Diana and think her husband Wales is worse than a moron, particularly given his taste in horses women. What man with any libido would have thrown over a hot, svelte, fertile young thing like Diana for this?
    Spoiler


    Thing was, Diana thought it would be fab if the world (guided by the wise hand of the U.N.) would eliminate land mines. I have some limited experience with land mines myself, as I got to clean up the battlefield after Operation Desert Storm - my own little Hurt Locker, so to speak.

    In all honesty, Diana's cause was and is a fools' errand. You can't "un-invent" something, particularly a weapon, and IED weaponry are about the only effective weapon that Islamists can bring to bear against Western forces. The high civilian death toll from land mines isn't due to the weapons' inherent effectiveness as much as it is due to their deliberate and even accidental employment. Western military forces document their minefields with great care, they reclaim the weapons when moving out, and even the aerial-deployed weapons (most of what I was cleaning up) are SUPPOSED to become inert after a designated interval.

    The problem is that most savage third-world military and terror forces don't particularly care about the suffering they inflict on the population (the ends justify the means in their creed, remember). In some cases, they WANT to cause that suffering, as to never let a crisis go to waste - a subjugated, fearful populace is far easier to hide in as well as recruit from.

  10. #10
    IncGamers Member BobCox2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    UnderYourDoorMat
    BattleTag What Me Worry?
    Posts
    10,806

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    The problem is that most savage third-world military and terror forces don't particularly care about the suffering they inflict on the population (the ends justify the means in their creed, remember). In some cases, they WANT to cause that suffering, as to never let a crisis go to waste - a subjugated, fearful populace is far easier to hide in as well as recruit from.
    It's a basic principle 1 wounded ties up more of the enemy than one dead and all modern high end bullets are built to take advantage of it as well so it's not 1st vs 3rd world is any more moral.
    The Hague Convention of 1899 bans the use of expanding projectiles against the military forces of other nations. USA did not sign.
    War is Hell.

    http://www.humanitas-international.o...n/lee-john.htm

    http://www.humanitas-international.o...au-liberation/

    Don't worry about morality, worry about living.
    In a world worth living in.
    Or better yet how to avoid one you don't want too live in, in the first place...
    Last edited by BobCox2; 30-04-2013 at 05:10.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •