Ethical implications for Soldiers by Unmanned Weapon Systems - Essay Example

?First PHIL 150 24 January Ethical implications for Soldiers who operate in Unmanned Weapon Systems In this essay I want to argue that the technological advent of unmanned weaponry has forged soldiers to assess the autonomous robotic system’s ability to judge a specific war situation before performing the lethal action. The debatable issue is that unmanned weapons if mechanized autonomously cannot still predict the difference between lawful and unethical war targets. They will have to be monitored by soldiers within the confines of battle field (Singer, 126). Mao-Tse-Tung said “Weapons are an important factor in war, but not the decisive one; it is man and not material that counts” (Collins, 177). Its human nature to fight, and there are no two opinions about the fact that as long as this human race is on the earth, wars will be fought. But perhaps the way wars are fought have changed from time to time. People generally do not agree with the fact that robots should be given that much space in the warfare as they do lack human emotions. When it comes to the debate concerning unmanned systems and who operates them, the British secretary of state has given a very appropriate description by saying that, “We risk continuing to fight a twenty first century conflict with twentieth century rules.” (Singer, 382), the reason for him to say this is that now wars do not have any place for emotions, mostly they are fought on the basis of ‘kill or be killed’(Atkin, 81). There are great number of rules which are set before a war is commenced, these rules are formed using holy books to conventions and treaties among countries. Mostly these rules try to specify distinction between murders and self-defense actions. The ICRC is the only organization which has a voice when it comes to wars and its weapons and what are the humane ways to apply these weapons in wars. There are four basic rules which are applied on weapons used in wars, which are as follows: First nations have to choose the methods and means to fight which is rather very limited (Singer 384). If this rule is not applied by the nations serious consequences would be implied to the whole world. As when in WWII Japan experienced nuclear bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki it was clear that such lethal weapons needed to be banned (Bidwai, and Vanaik, 142). Secondly weapons which cannot discriminate between civilians and warriors are strictly prohibited (Singer, 384). This is the most serious problem which is affecting the morality code when it comes to using any kind of weapons not just unmanned ones. Weapons causing unnecessary suffering are not allowed either (Singer, 384). Again a war is not meant to hurt commoners, and it is also not meant to put any one in a position where the suffering gets unbearable, as everyone knows that in Hiroshima and Nagasaki physically disabled children were born for years due to the after effects of nuclear radiations (Sahu, 189). Lastly any weapons that the international community decides are objectionable for any reason are forbidden (Singer, 384). A great number of weapons have been disallowed to be used in wars, especially weapons of mass destruction (Langford, 4). Unmanned weapons in the warfare have been introduced to save man force from major suffering when battle field is rather intense, but sometimes it looks like these weapons are serving the reverse purpose, by committing innocent lives’ massacre. The second rule of not letting weapons in to the war which cannot differentiate between commoners and enemy soldiers usually prohibits weapons of mass destruction but still these rules could not be properly implemented when wars are fought. Even today drones are being used to find terrorists, and in the midst innocent people are being killed (Sheehan, 113). So the unsolved query is whether the ethical implication are getting applied in their true spirit, in today’s era when every country is trying to prove its mettle by letting others know what they have in terms of advanced technology related to arms and ammunition. Another ethical concern on part of military soldiers is that they are in no way of getting harmed while operating unmanned systems, therefore they sometimes err the caution of taking considerate measures while targeting enemies. It so happens that friendly forces operating in the battlefield might also become at stake. Ethical behavior requires constant promotion through valid unmanned system designing so that soldiers do not indulge in making decisions related to “life and death” with the presumption as if they are playing a “videogame” (Sparrow, 183-184). Even though it is considered that love and passion do not stand in way of war and powers, in reality it is quite the opposite. When wars are fought it is the love for the country that drives a passion in soldier to defend its nation from external attack. When unmanned weapons take the place of soldiers, that passion and drive is replaced by absolutely nothing as Colonel Thomas K Adams of US army has said, “Wars are a human phenomenon, arising from human needs for human purposes. This makes human participation at some level critical or the entire exercise becomes pointless” (Singer, 123), Adams makes a point that if humans are the one who need war then it is essential for them to participate in them, they cannot leave all the work to machine, and see the world get destroyed by their own creations and due to this fact those who are handling these weapons from a distance get very unemotional as they do not know what is happening in the ground field. Sometimes it happens that people who are handling the unmanned weaponry get psychologically attached to them in a negative way. There are ways that could be employed to use these unmanned weapons without causing a great number of harm, some of those ethics are discussed below: Making military robots safe, so that it’s not even harmful for the people who are using it, weapons are not supposed to be unfriendly to the people who are using them. No military wants that the weapons they are using would back fire on them and they lose precious man force. Secondly making sure that commoners are out of the way when these kinds of weapons are used in the warfare. For example if there is a minefield operation and unmanned systems are to be used there, those mine field would not be anywhere near places where innocent lives are at risk. Thirdly very important point is that there is a lot of psychological pressure on those who are responsible to handle these kinds of systems. So it is necessary that such weapon operators should be considered whenever an unmanned weapon system is being designed. Another problem or it can be said an advantage too, which military faces when working on unmanned systems is that soldiers who operate these systems tend to get attached to them if these systems really work well. A deep psychological training is rather needed to remove or improve this attachment according to need. As it is human nature to get fond to the things which they are getting related to for a long time, this meaningful bond between man and machine, can sometimes help and sometimes causes serious complications (Arkin, 44). If these four points are closely analyzed then, whenever designing these weapons, it would be easier to eradicate the issues faced by the military. Modern warriors are already capable of inflicting atrocities on target population from a visible distance by making use of technology like telescope sights and target detecting sensors to mitigate extensive blood shed thus lessening some kind of psychological buffer associated with innocent killings (Sparrow, 184). Man can never solve problems like what are the ethical codes for which the weapon is supposed to be used, but surely it is in the human hands to rectify the mistakes it has made in the pasts and lost thousands of lives and assets due to it. It is challenging for the human conscience if innocent people become victims of mass destruction. Wars can never be peaceful but some extent of organization with in the military and some planning to save lives rather than destroying through unmanned weapons can make all the difference. Unmanned systems were introduced to save soldiers from getting hurt, but it should be also kept in mind that these weapons should not end precious lives having no concern with the war agenda. Wherever unmanned weaponry is concerned it is best for everyone to abide by the strict war codes so that a great loss of lives can be avoided. With better engineering tactics in the form of advanced neural networks, target detectors and sensors most of the issues associated with unethical application of unmanned systems brought about by military can be avoided. Work Cited Arkin, Ronald. Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots. Boca Raton, London, New York: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2009. 44. Print. Atkin, Jonathan. A war of individuals: Bloomsbury attitudes to the Great War. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2002. 81. Print. Bidwai, P, and Vanaik,A. New nukes: India, Pakistan, and global nuclear disarmament Bestselling History and Politics Series Voices & Visions. Brooklyn, New York: Interlink Books, 2000. 142. Print. Collins, John M. Military geography for professionals and the public. illustrated. Washington DC: DIANE Publishing, 1998. 177. Print. Langford, Roland E. Introduction to weapons of mass destruction: radiological, chemical, and biological. Illustrated. Hoboken, New Jersey and Canada: Wiley-IEEE, 2004. 4. Print. Sahu, Binod K. Aids And Population Education. Reprint. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd, 2006. 189. Print. Sheehan, C. Dear President Bush. San Francisco, CA: City Lights Books, 2006. 113. Print Sparrow, R. Building a Better WarBot: Ethical Issues in the Design of Unmanned Systems for Military Applications. Science Engineering Ethics, (2009) 15:169-187. Print Singer, P.W. Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 2Ist Century. New York: The Penguin Press, 2009. Print. Read More