Perhaps one of the most ominous
messages from Singer’s writings can be read at the end of the fifth chapter of
his book where he details the threats that the United States has received in
response to its consideration of developing warfare technology for space.
Technological developments are made in response to a need that the population
identifies, but are the responses to near-sighted needs of warfare hazardous in the
long-run? It is easy to think about the immediate benefits of technological
developments such as drones—including reducing the casualties of US troops and
the precision of US military attacks. However, the dangers of such technology are
also numerous, albeit less apparent.
Perhaps one of the biggest needs in the military that is currently being addressed is the need for reduction in casualties of US troops. To address this need, one “unimaginative bureaucrat” pushed for the military to greatly increase the use of unmanned technology in the first decade of the new millennium. However, now that the need is being largely addressed, controversies are arising these breakthroughs in warfare technology—drones in particular.
Drones have led to numerous war crimes involving the suffering they have caused noncombatants. Not only are drones limiting for ethical reasons, but they also bring with them a bevy of tactical issues which Brunstetter mentions in his paper including the problem of getting less information from drone strikes and that drone strikes can be seen as a declaration of war. In addition, drone strikes have only shown to reduce casualties on one side—the side launching the drone strikes. Though the government has claimed that drone strikes are more “precise” in the past, the figures that they have provided are often contested. With the benefit of drone strikes appearing to be extremely one-sided, one cannot help but to imagine a frightening future where drone strikes are a common method of warfare for both sides.
One idea continued to float to the top throughout these readings: technology such as drones appear to solve an immediate need but then spark a multitude of other issues following it. It seems that the short-term goals of reducing casualties while also retaining a strong defense has perhaps served a purpose for the immediate future but has opened not only the US but also the entire world to new dangers down the line. Should the US really be interested in continuing to develop these technologies that may solve an immediate problem but appear to not be worth the resulting trouble in the end? It is very apparent that the ramifications of developing new warfare technology should be taken into account.
The perfection of warfare technology appears to be a goal that will never be reached because warfare is an imperfect thing. After the readings from this week, one cannot help but have a bit of gratitude for the “unimaginative bureaucrats” that serve as a large obstacle for the development of new warfare technology.
Perhaps one of the biggest needs in the military that is currently being addressed is the need for reduction in casualties of US troops. To address this need, one “unimaginative bureaucrat” pushed for the military to greatly increase the use of unmanned technology in the first decade of the new millennium. However, now that the need is being largely addressed, controversies are arising these breakthroughs in warfare technology—drones in particular.
Drones have led to numerous war crimes involving the suffering they have caused noncombatants. Not only are drones limiting for ethical reasons, but they also bring with them a bevy of tactical issues which Brunstetter mentions in his paper including the problem of getting less information from drone strikes and that drone strikes can be seen as a declaration of war. In addition, drone strikes have only shown to reduce casualties on one side—the side launching the drone strikes. Though the government has claimed that drone strikes are more “precise” in the past, the figures that they have provided are often contested. With the benefit of drone strikes appearing to be extremely one-sided, one cannot help but to imagine a frightening future where drone strikes are a common method of warfare for both sides.
One idea continued to float to the top throughout these readings: technology such as drones appear to solve an immediate need but then spark a multitude of other issues following it. It seems that the short-term goals of reducing casualties while also retaining a strong defense has perhaps served a purpose for the immediate future but has opened not only the US but also the entire world to new dangers down the line. Should the US really be interested in continuing to develop these technologies that may solve an immediate problem but appear to not be worth the resulting trouble in the end? It is very apparent that the ramifications of developing new warfare technology should be taken into account.
The perfection of warfare technology appears to be a goal that will never be reached because warfare is an imperfect thing. After the readings from this week, one cannot help but have a bit of gratitude for the “unimaginative bureaucrats” that serve as a large obstacle for the development of new warfare technology.
I agree with Steven's comment that warfare is inherently unbalanced. Although advanced technology seems to be a catalyst to saving lives, one must also look at the results of these technologies to the "enemy". Alas, warfare is not something that will ever be fair or eradicated. It is an omnipresent factor of humanity and how we interact with one another. Steven's article shed a different light on the outlook I had with technology involving warfare. In my post, I talked about it being negative, how when you think of how warfare is imperfect and continuous, then maybe technology can at least let us save lives on our side and maybe diminish the devastation to the other.
ReplyDeleteI think this is especially fascinating because we have a marked shift from WWII and the atomic bomb which had the goal of destroying as much as possible, to now an obsession with precision and perfection which has still led to so much bloodshed. I agree that this technology could advance and create new unforeseen dangers down the road but at the same time it could create new solutions as well. I don't want to try and predict the future but I certainly think your comments should keep us wary and prevent us from plunging headfirst and instead tip toe into the future.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the goal of warfare on both sides is to be perfect. The interesting thing is that although we seek out perfection it seems that the only way for war to be perfect is to avoid war all together. If war is avoided than diplomacy is enhances and this is the perfect form of warfare. War does not have to have people fighting back and forth, instead it can be redefined to the progression of ideas and making people adopt them (not necessarily through violence). I think that the future of warfare is anything but perfection, it is more likely to impact as accidents are more likely to happen when we leave decision making up to machines.
ReplyDelete