View Single Post
Old 12-16-2009, 07:10 PM   #29
DuePew

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
634
Senior Member
Default
"First, I am not against using the drones."
Predator Drones-Helpful or hurting?

The Art of War is a military text dealing with military matters. Sun Tzu was a general and addresses military issues primarily and I suspect moral issues for the most part were left to other members of the court. And I suspect that he would have listened to the moral questions as well. For example, I believe that in his text he does not advocate slaughter instead of offering surrender. This is a strategic issue but a moral one as well.

Regarding, Agincourt, the archers did their job but certainly were not comparable to a drone. First, they could have come under fire from French archers. If the French knights and cav. had not spent the night on their horses and attacked on dry ground those archers would have run and been picked off. The French attacked probably on the idea that they out numbered the English, and due to the arrogance of the belief that a knight was only the equal of another knight, and they would show these English peasants. The real slaughter was due to the English infantry that came in with their pikes and stuck them in the soft spots of the French amour like under the arms, groin, etc. Give credit to Henry V for reading the Art of War and choosing the ground to fight on.

As long as we are on Henry V, there are a few moral issues there. Such as in the aftermath Henry addresses a lopsided victory with temperence not out of a sense of benevolence but out of a sense of... morality?

I have not questioned anyone regarding moral sense regarding this thread but if I only cared about what others wrote their certainly is room for this. My main moral issue with the drones is that inasmuch as we believe that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutelely the operator or a drone or the commander of an operator is human and subject to corruption of moral character. Within a battle or attack such corruption is kept incheck with the personal risk.

Regarding the possible attack because of the use of drones. While an attack in this country would not lessen the possibility of using drones; however, this logic presupposes our enemy will act logically or strategically. Neither, need be true on the part of the Taliban or Al Queda. Also, they could act in a very simple sense and say that the combantants are in the US and strike here. While we faced attack here in any case, our enemy now has a justified reason for striking here because the combatants are here.
IMO, a moral analysis of predator drones in a vacuum would probably find them morally questionable-HOWEVER-their targets are individuals who generally only attack innocent and defenseless civilians-and then retreat into the civilian population and hide among them. This is an abjectly IMMORAL form of warfare-if you can even call it that. Therefore, the use of predator drones to attack and kill those who kill innocent civilians and attempt to hide among them is inherently justified.
DuePew is offline


 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:39 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity