Drones are a very interesting concept. On the one hand, they insulate us from the dangers of war, but on the other hand, they insulate us from the dangers of war. This is both a harm and a benefit. On the one hand, politicians are freer to take more direct actions without worry of public outcry, but, again, we now have a situation where politicians are insulated from the threat of changing political winds this is a moral hazard if I’ve ever seen one.
The issues with the morality of drones, however, in my opinion, has little to do with the so-called “playstation mentality,” though, in my opinion, that certainly is a big deal. I think the big issue here is the collateral damage. The definition for a combatant is so vague and the power with which the Obama regime executes these strikes so undefined. Primarily, unless explicitly posthumously proven innocent it is very difficult to identify, let alone prove the innocence of, charred remains, any military age male in the strike zone is defined as a combatant, simply by virtue of being in the strike zone.
This is clearly erroneous, and if these are the standards which, by all indication, they are by which we identify targets, then theres clear moral hazards present. In addition to the fact that our definition of collateral damage is skewed, evidence suggests that our Government outright targets civilians rescue workers and funeral attendees. If this is true which, by all indication, it is then these strikes can only undermine our intentions in
With these huge harms in mind, we can still see the benefits to drones. They sanitize the war zone–separate American casualties from the enemy. They are overwhelmingly supported at home, which, I suppose, in a democracy, is the true test of legitimacy. They assist us in our war effort greatly. Say what you will about the targeting mechanism faults which would exist in a blackhawk strike, or F-22 bombing they kill terrorists lots of them. Furthermore, there’s every reason to believe that casualties would be higher under almost any other means of attack than drones casualties are a fact of war, not drones.
That being said, targeted killing, especially to this degree, is a relatively new phenomenon. Drones have enabled a war in which our enemies are targeted and killed one by one, rather than in battle fields, or even battles. This could be a good thing, or a bad thing, and certainly both sides can and will be argued. When all is said and done, I personally believe that Con has a better side as far as the facts are concerned. That being said, however, Pro will be by no means difficult to argue.