A pretty heated topic for debate right now is the morality of the use of Drones in warfare. On one side of the debate, drones provide a way to engage in military combat without having to endanger the lives of soldiers. The other side to this argument proposes the issue:
"To say that we can target individuals without incurring troop causalities does not imply that we ought to" (NYTimes).This side of the debate argues that drone warfare is not always necessary because it proposes certain moral issues. For example, in an article from the New York Times, "it's difficult to blame a person you cannot see, and even harder to bring them to justice". But this post is not about the morality of drone warfare, it is just the lead in to what poses a bigger threat, nuclear or drone warfare?
Lets start with the similarities between these two methods of warfare. Drones, like nuclear weapons, are difficult to posses for countries that do not have the proper capabilities. The building of armed drones requires many expensive materials and time, just as nuclear weapons do, making it near impossible for less developed and more limited countries to posses such a weapon. So as talked about in class, countries that can posses drones, create a deterrence factor similar to nuclear deterrence, that repel less developed countries from attacking them. The devastation factor is another similarity between these two weapons. The problem with a nuclear bomb, is the massive lethal radius that is released with initial explosion. This explosion destroys not only the target, but any civilians or structures that stand within in a 50 mile radius. Drones also have been seen to have similar devastating effects on civilian populations. In one article by Shawn Helton on drone warfare, he states
"There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one suspected terrorist)."As you can see, both nuclear and drone warfare create devastating a affect on civilian causalities.
The differences that exist between these weapons can be narrowed down to the capabilities. When a state posses a nuclear weapon, it becomes capable to use that weapon as a threat to provoke fear. But when a state posses a drone, it gives the state the capability to commit terrorist actions without a clear trail left behind of who exactly was in control of the drone. With the capability of creating an attack on another state, without a clear definition of who was behind the attack, the attack itself becomes the threat. This in turn can be seen as a reason why drone attacks are more dangerous than nuclear attacks. The target for the attack is left with no one to blame, and no one to retaliate against, leaving it vulnerable for attack again.
So with the rise in technology and the rise of a new era of warfare, I ask the question, should drones be considered as big of a threat as nuclear weapons, or do they propose an even bigger threat?
I do not see anything wrong with drone weapons. It reduces American casualties and there are many sources that say they are quite effective. One of the places that we use drones the most is in Pakistan and their own Defense Ministry announced that just 3% of deaths from drone strikes since 2008 were noncombatants. I also think it would be silly to say that drones are a bigger threat than nuclear weapons. A nuclear strike is indiscriminate and would wipe out thousands of people. At least with a drone strike there is a trained military personnel who can target very specific threats and not have to wipe out entire cities while doing it. Here is the source for the Pakistan Ministry of Defense statistic: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/10/30/241853364/pakistan-says-drones-killed-far-fewer-civilians-than-thought
ReplyDeleteWhen considering which form of warfare is considered a larger threat, between drones and nuclear weapons, I feel that issue is much less about their military effectiveness but about the moral and societal implications of them. Nuclear weapons are simple. They are dropped in one spot, wipe out everything in sight, and make the area unlivable due to radiation for decades. The message sent to the world when a nuclear weapon is used states that the attacking country is willing to amass any sort of devastation to reach their goal, whatever that may be. Drones, on the other hand, bring in a whole new perspective. Ethically they take away the morality of ending a life in person. To the controller they are killing images on a video screen similar to games such as Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto. The most important aspect of drones is the implication of their use in homeland security. It is estimated by the FAA that within ten years there will be over 30,000 drones above the US. These drones will be used for surveillance and enforcement of law (which now allows US citizens to be killed domestically without trial) basically stripping citizens of any feeling of privacy or safety. The real question that should be asked is whether nuclear weapons or the future possibilities of drone use are a bigger threat.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dronejournalismlab.org/post/42042217053/update-nine-states-looking-to-restrict-uav-use-more
In my view, comparing nuclear weapons and drones is like comparing (sorry for the cliche) apples and oranges. Nuclear weapons were designed with the overt intent of destroying the infrastructure of a city and annihilating the civilian population within the area. Drones, on the other hand, are largely used for surveillance and targeted killings. There is no precedent of governments using drones to "commit terrorist actions" nor do I think they will be used in inter-state warfare. A government being attacked by drones, given equal capabilities as the attacker, is able to shoot them out. The United States will most definitely continue to utilize drones to target suspected terrorists yet I am not convinced that they pose the same threat as nuclear weapons or would ever be used as a bargaining chip in IR.
ReplyDeleteJust as Tontonster emphasized, its not about which type of a weapon is more deadlier, but more what are the moral implications of using nuclear and drone weapons. Overall, purposeful taking of a human life, regardless how well justified, is always morally wrong. I do not condone the use of any of these weapons, however I believe that the use of drones is a preferable weapon because it is more discriminate, precise and it poses less harm than other forms of military weaponry. Of course, being in war and killing people is never a good thing, but if a military action is morally justified, meaning the intervention is addressing things such as human rights abuses, using drones is more preferable weapon of war. Nonetheless, making sure that the military operation is carried out with as little harm as possible is an imperative. In todays modern world, drones do posses the ability to be misused, however, drones represent a moral improvement over other forms of modern weaponry.
ReplyDeleteIn many ways, these two are inversely related. As we enter an age of "Nuclear Taboo" we are changing the priorities of our defense budget as well. We no longer stress the development of nuclear weapons because their lack of utility. Drone warfare has attracted considerable funding because of its efficiency in the urban and unconventional combat the US is involved in. This could also be dangerous; as we focus our efforts and finances on conventional weapons, we let our nuclear weapons and delivery systems age while new powers are developing fresh nuclear technology. While we still maintain nuclear superiority, it is important revitalize our country's nuclear systems so that we can utilize effective deterrence for decades to come.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing I see about drones, and I apoligise that I may go on a bit of a rant here about only drones and not nuclear weapons, is that there should be no real moral issues behind these attacks. They act as any fighter jet would on the battle field. They are not unmanned aircraft. They are simply remotely piloted. Intelligence still goes into every strike and if things go wrong there is still a pilot who is able to be held directly accountable for an incorrect strike. These drones are a battlefield God-sent because they enhance our ability to gather intelligence in order to reduce collateral damage. Unlike manned aircraft, these drones can loiter for hours ensuring concrete intelligence before a strike. Also these drones are an asset that saves many lives; it takes the pilot out of the battle zone, and provides intelligence to the soldier on the ground to ensure their safety and civilian safety. Drones are a needed weapon in the future of armed conflict and should be sought after highly by the United States.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a little hard to compare the devastation of drone to that of nuclear weapons. However, the use of drones does present an ethical issue that truly emphasizes the value of American lives over the lives of citizens abroad. This is probably because drone attacks replace moral justification with practical efficiency in military strikes. This is because drone limit the cost of war, in matters of blood and capital, and troops who operate them can maintain a safer stand-off position in Eastern Europe or the United States. More importantly, drones have precision-guided munitions that can limit collateral damage. On the ethic side, economists and philosophers call this a "moral hazard" where the U. S. military strikes in the Middle East could violate the 1973 War Powers Resolution and that the statements of value are often confused. Therefore, although drones reduce collateral damage they are viewed negatively because of its confusion between moral justification and tactical efficiency, and often question if we ought to use drones internationally.
ReplyDeleteThe difference that I see between the two weapons is that we actually use drones quite a bit to reach areas where conventional warfare lacks and they bring up ethical questions whereas nuclear weapons are more existentially threatening and last-resort type of weapons. I would say that drones are the bigger threat right now, unless terrorists obtain nuclear technology someday (which would be very difficult because of the financial restraint). Even then, I would agree with Elizabeth's point that the two weapons have different objectives. It's just that I would ask this question of which weapon is a bigger threat to the family and friends of civilians that have been killed indiscriminately.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the question isn't so much should drones be considered as big of a threat as nuclear weapons or bigger but should rather be geared towards how we ought to use drones as we move forward. There is no doubt in my mind that this is a brilliant technology, but we unfortunately we seem to be disconnected from the violence in this way and this gives us the impression that the human cost is less when using drones. Morally I could see this leading to dangerous grounds if we start to value lives of opposition as less than our own. Drones are a perfectly reasonable means of actualizing a strike as long as we don't mindlessly use them but rather start to create more strict guidelines for their use.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Elizabeth that comparing drones and nuclear weapons is difficult given the very different nature of the weapons. Following World War II, the prospect of total war became increasingly precarious particularly among powerful nations and specifically those with nuclear capabilities. In a way, drone warfare can be seen as a response to this absence of total warfare in which powerful nations rely on this technology to implement strategic strikes on high value targets. While civilians do make up a significant number of the casualties in these strikes, the devastation and civilian casualties that result from nuclear warfare is exponentially higher. Therefore, I would argue that drones should not be considered as big of a threat as nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, drones are way more beneficial than you make them out to be. While they are used often as weapons to bomb sites and kill terrorists, they're also used to survey and gather intelligence, protect ground troops through IR spotlights that allows the soldiers to view the dark battleground, and provide a way to deliver things to either troops or countries. Nuclear weapons on the other hand were created for complete and total annihilation. You can't survey land or deliver food to troops with a nuclear bomb. Not only do they cause damage for up to 5.6 km, they have a residual nuclear fallout that leaves lands uninhabitable. That's of course unless you want a child with 3 arms. While I do understand civilians are killed using drone strikes, I can guarantee nuclear weapons cause a far greater number of civilian casualties when used. In conclusion, drones are a threat but clearly nuclear weapons are far bigger of a threat than them.
ReplyDelete