Are drones more immoral than other weapons?

[Nessa]

http://m.gulfnews.com/opinion/are-drone ... -1.1066661

Thoughts?

[Philip]

WEAPONS themselves are neither moral nor immoral. Why not ask this same question of missiles launched from great distances, bombs from high altitudes, machinegun rounds fired in urban warfare? They are tools of war, which can be justified, per Scripture. The questions are, what is the intent of their use, their intended target, and why are their victims targeted.

Why, do YOU think they are immoral? If so, why anymore than other weapons?

[Storyteller]

I think, maybe, its the fact that they are so, trying to think of the word, impersonal isnt right. What I mean is, to kill someone with a gun for example, you have to be there face to face so to speak. Its kinda like you have to take responsibility for it, personally whereas a drone, or bomb, you just set it off, theres no personal involvement.

[RickD]

I think, maybe, its the fact that they are so, trying to think of the word, impersonal isnt right. What I mean is, to kill someone with a gun for example, you have to be there face to face so to speak. Its kinda like you have to take responsibility for it, personally whereas a drone, or bomb, you just set it off, theres no personal involvement.

Drones are controlled by someone operating them. Usually there's a camera on the drone, so they can see exactly what they're hitting.

And on the flip side, snipers don't have to be up close, face to face. Some snipers shoot from a mile away.

[Storyteller]

I think, maybe, its the fact that they are so, trying to think of the word, impersonal isnt right. What I mean is, to kill someone with a gun for example, you have to be there face to face so to speak. Its kinda like you have to take responsibility for it, personally whereas a drone, or bomb, you just set it off, theres no personal involvement.

Drones are controlled by someone operating them. Usually there's a camera on the drone, so they can see exactly what they're hitting.

And on the flip side, snipers don't have to be up close, face to face. Some snipers shoot from a mile away.

It still seems different somehow. Can't explain it.

[Philip]

Story: ... whereas a drone, or bomb, you just set it off, theres no personal involvement

Well, Story has been reading all of those fantasy novels again. So you'd rather warfare go all retro on us - don't shoot to you see the whites of their eyes, eh? A return back to when men were really MEN! Back when your army stood across a field gazing upon several thousand warriors screaming and swearing every possible insult and fearful posturing, with every nasty sharp axe, dagger, spear, sword they had, and with a giant roar, you were going to crash right into the thick of them, into a nightmarish tangle of blood, guts, mangled horses and men, decapitated heads and limbs scattered all about? Is THAT personal enough?




Uh, isn't that the best way to avoid being killed yourself is an ability to defeat an enemy where there is little to no PERSONAL involvement? Think about this: You have key known bombers, mass killers, and other terrorists and plotters in a key stronghold. Now, you COULD attack them conventionally, lose hundreds of your men, OR you could send a drone, evil guys taken out, you lose not one single man. Which is better? IF you make the decision that war is justified, and as war necessarily involves killing, then you want to do so where you lose the least amount of life, you take out targets effectively. Even ancient bows were killing impersonally. The Royal Air Force took the battle to Hitler from high above - there was no "pinpoint" accuracy in those bombs. Could you have seen who the knight trying to take your head off was, as he had an full helmet on? Today, modern technology dictates that war is often impersonal. Your enemy attacks from great distances with artillery, long-range guns. A great deal of it is engaged from considerable distances.

[Nessa]

I think, maybe, its the fact that they are so, trying to think of the word, impersonal isnt right. What I mean is, to kill someone with a gun for example, you have to be there face to face so to speak. Its kinda like you have to take responsibility for it, personally whereas a drone, or bomb, you just set it off, theres no personal involvement.

Drones are controlled by someone operating them. Usually there's a camera on the drone, so they can see exactly what they're hitting.

And on the flip side, snipers don't have to be up close, face to face. Some snipers shoot from a mile away.

It still seems different somehow. Can't explain it.

I agree with you

Its the method and level of personal involvement and responsibility taken.

I mean take kurieuo's sig for a moment.

There is a question that is posed about whether you'd still do it if you were using a gun.

We need to know what we are actually doing here. Who we are actually killing? Each life is made in the image of God. And we are talking about individual lives here. Not just a bunch of faceless people.

We can be so desensitised from a distance (up close too). We can detach ourselves and say it doesnt really matter, the ends justify the means. So what if a theres a few innocent lives thown into the mix.

Yes, I much prefer people using the up close and personal method of killing. Taking responsibility for each life you take. Staring your victim in the face and having the guts to say 'I am the reason you are about to die'

And yes, maybe thats not always possible with war.

download (1).jpg (10.39 KiB) Viewed 2617 times

[Philip]

I hereby give you Nessa, apparently the only REAL man here amongst us:

Nessa: Yes, I much prefer people using the up close and personal method of killing. Taking responsibility for each life you take. Staring your victim in the face and having the guts to say 'I am the reason you are about to die'

No fearful viking warrior ever said it better! Probably said to her husband after he forgot their anniversary.

She probably also likes their motto: "It's a good day to die!"

Meanwhile, the rest of us like the Monty Python slogan better: "Run away!"

[Nessa]

More like...

images (13).jpg (22.08 KiB) Viewed 2609 times

[Nessa]

I dont think I could kill anybody myself - not even hubby if he forgot our anniversary...

Wheres the suffering in that?! A trip to heaven?

No, no, no, I'd choose other methods

[RickD]

The issue of innocent lives being taken in war, is an interesting one. If the whole issue isn't difficult enough, try this one...

The US bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima with atomic bombs, killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. Innocent lives. Was that bombing justified?

Before you say no, consider what would have happened(most likely, according to experts), if the US didn't bomb those cities. Most likely, Russia would've invaded Japan, resulting in millions of civilian casualties.

[Philip]

Rick: The US bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima with atomic bombs, killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. Innocent lives. Was that bombing justified?

Before you say no, consider what would have happened(most likely, according to experts), if the US didn't bomb those cities. Most likely, Russia would've invaded Japan, resulting in millions of civilian casualties.

So, whatever you decide about such a bomb, there are two terrible outcomes: 1) Drop the bombs: thousands in two cities will die; 2) Don't bomb, and many MORE thousands will die in a prolonged war and necessary land invasion - both civilian and military.

Then the question became, which decision will cause the least death, gets you closer to peace, provides the greatest "good," given the situation and options? Option 1 seems unthinkable until you consider the horrific ramifications of Option 2.

What is interesting is that even though Japan knew they could not win, their fanatical leaders did not surrender until nine days days after the first bomb, and SIX days after the second one. So, is there any illusion that Japan would have surrendered without MANY more casualties OR the bombs being dropped? And, remember, their cities had already been virtually obliterated by Allied bombing. Such was the Japanese fanaticism that the last Japanese soldier hiding out in Philippine jungles didn't surrender until 1974 - nearly 30 years after the war ended.

[RickD]

Yes Philip. And as fanatical as Japan's leaders were, they still used logic and reason to conclude that it was in their best interest to surrender.

Now contrast that with Islamic terrorists. Do they think it's in their best interest to surrender, and lay down their arms?

If not, how are they to be defeated? I can't see any other way than complete annihilation of their funding sources, punishment to any nation harboring them, and just killing them before they kill any other civilians.

As bad as war is, it's a necessary evil. The US and other nations fighting against these terrorists, have as a primary duty, to protect their citizens by any means necessary. We are talking about secular governments. Not individual Christians. What an individual Christian should or shouldn't do, is irrelevant. The duty of any civilized nation, is to protect the lives of its citizens.*



*our nation has completely failed at protecting the most vulnerable of us. I hope they at least protect those already born.

[Storyteller]

I think, maybe, its the fact that they are so, trying to think of the word, impersonal isnt right. What I mean is, to kill someone with a gun for example, you have to be there face to face so to speak. Its kinda like you have to take responsibility for it, personally whereas a drone, or bomb, you just set it off, theres no personal involvement.

Drones are controlled by someone operating them. Usually there's a camera on the drone, so they can see exactly what they're hitting.

And on the flip side, snipers don't have to be up close, face to face. Some snipers shoot from a mile away.

It still seems different somehow. Can't explain it.

I agree with you

Its the method and level of personal involvement and responsibility taken.

I mean take kurieuo's sig for a moment.

There is a question that is posed about whether you'd still do it if you were using a gun.

We need to know what we are actually doing here. Who we are actually killing? Each life is made in the image of God. And we are talking about individual lives here. Not just a bunch of faceless people.

We can be so desensitised from a distance (up close too). We can detach ourselves and say it doesnt really matter, the ends justify the means. So what if a theres a few innocent lives thown into the mix.

Yes, I much prefer people using the up close and personal method of killing. Taking responsibility for each life you take. Staring your victim in the face and having the guts to say 'I am the reason you are about to die'

And yes, maybe thats not always possible with war.

download (1).jpg

Well put!

[RickD]

Do you two ever disagree?

You're like two blonde Siamese twins.