For all the ideologies involved in war, pinning down the ethics that should be adhered to in a combat zone is a slippery slope.
The old adage says that “all’s fair in love and war,” but is it really?
When is war moral? What acts make up an ethical war, if such a thing really exists?
Technological advances for use on the battlefield can have astounding effects not only on opposing military forces, but on civilians and the world as a whole — look at the consequences of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the chemical weapons used by Saddam Hussein on his own people.
When do the ends justify the means of acts of aggression, and who has a say in making that decision?
The national Consortium on Emerging Technologies, Military Operations and National Security is working to address the ethical, legal, governance and social implications of emerging technologies, said founding chair of the consortium and ASU professor Brad Allenby.
While the idea of robot warfare may seem a little too “Terminator” for some, technology has continued to surprise us by making science fiction real. Unsurprisingly, most nations interested in becoming world powers are interested in acquiring futuristic military technology, Allenby said.
How much technology is too much technology on the battlefield? With the most advanced technology comes dominance, but the question is, at what cost? There’s a case to be made for taking the moral high ground, but when American lives are on the line, it can start to look less and less important.
The questions on ethics in warfare are not easily answered, and that in itself makes it worthy of discussion, a discussion the consortium is admirably partaking in.
If we rely on robots instead of soldiers to fight wars, and the push of a button can wipe out an entire enemy force, is it a bad thing? What if you’re not on the side with the button?
There is something to be said for relying on technology to save human lives. But on the other hand, if there are no risks to take in warfare, it becomes a strange sort of giant chess game for world dominance, or something resembling the board game “Risk.”
Reservations play a tremendous role in planning out war strategy.
Removing the human risk factor in war also removes the humanity in war — after all, most wars touted as being worthy of fighting rest on ideological backing. No one wants his or her soldiers to die, but forgetting the human cost on either side could be devastating to the world as a whole.
At the same time, ignoring the benefits of technology in hopes of an idealized war setting — obviously an oxymoron — is naïve and sets us up for horrendous consequences. If you had the ability to save soldiers’ lives, why wouldn’t you?
Too often we as college students are too caught up in schoolwork to actually appreciate the diversity of opinion fostered by a university setting. But when we do that, we’re robbing this debate of our fresh and idealistic perspectives — this debate needs the minds of college students to find a solution.
How many times have we been told that we’re this country’s future?
Well, it’s about time we started acting like we care about exactly what that future looks like.
