3 ms·
Things like this, along with the new suite of drone modules capable of jamming/destroying radars, seem to be creating an atmosphere where our military can opera
by elif 11y ago
Things like this, along with the new suite of drone modules capable of jamming/destroying radars, seem to be creating an atmosphere where our military can operate with relative impunity. That is not, in itself, an ethical problem.
If we can kill 1,000 people with 0 deaths, however, the ethical bar for how we apply that force should be held to a stricter standard, as the slope to fascism is being made steeper. Unfortunately, the recent trend of extrajudicial, extralegal executive action 'war' declaration post-9/11 appears to be lowering that bar.
Even if you think there is a moral imperative to every one of our military deployments: having no skin in the game also makes it easier to demonize us, to the benefit of anti-US propaganda.
- ultraforce 11y agoI think with a situation such as this it may make the prioritizing of only damaging enemy combatants, of course this is suggesting the term enemy combatants being based around people engaging directly at firing weapons towards those that the us military or those who are employed by the military are in charge of protecting or themselves.
- InclinedPlane 11y ago> If we can kill 1,000 people with 0 deaths, however, the ethical bar for how we apply that force should be held to a stricter standard... What do you mean "if"? We've already killed thousands of people with drone strikes. And sadly the ethical bar on that is not held to a stricter standard, indeed it's held to a lower standard. Some people are targeted based on social networking algorithms that are hugely flawed. The ratio of "collateral damage" deaths to "good kills" is perhaps as low as 50/50, maybe even worse, since there's very little investigative followup.