prestidigital's Journal: Unmanned War

A while back I engaged in a thread about unmanned combat. I asserted an argument by way of a flippant comment, as can be easy to do on Slashdot, and inevitably, I drew a sharp, but deserved response. Even in my reply-to-the-reply I tried to be more thoughtful of my remarks, but I was still acting a little stuck up on the subject I think.

The truth is that is a human replacement technologies and human augmentation technologies are subjects that I often find myself pondering to new depths. This includes domains beyond the military technology (e.g., medical technology). I don't know why I am drawn to thinking about this so much, but I am. Like a lot of things I consider intently, these subjects tend to divide me in half, but in this case I am even more particularly vexed. I am sure a lot of that has to do with my work.

The thing is, I could go on an on with an equal number of reasonable-sounding arguments for and against the use of technology that, on the one hand is designed to reduce casualties from violent acts of war, and on the other, technology that can ostensibly deliver death through a laser scope and a telecommunications line. The same is true when I think about technology that augments the human body and/or mind. Perhaps more so in this domain, it is neither difficult nor unrealisitic to forecast grim consequences. But that whole balancing process really gets me nowhere when I'm trying to figure out what is right and what is wrong about such technologies, what may benefit humanity and what can be misused. I am also concerned about negative effects on democracy and freedom caused by these kinds of technologies.

I am guilty of giving in to cynical whims, but generally I a very positive about the future of technology and its impact on humanity. I am trying like hell to not balance my opinion of military technology, and instead would like to discover uncompromising pacifism, but I fear I may be too practical for it. If there is ever an armed Predator flying over Osama Bin Laden, I want someone to pull the remote trigger. I have little doubt, however, that such action will NOT put much damper on terrorism, for I believe terrorism thrives on human blight and human blight seems to be thriving on the neglect of civilized nations.

Right now the message I'm getting from the 9/11 Commission is that my government has done a poor job for a long time of exercising good judgement when using our military. But ultimately, I know that I live in a free society and free societies always stand up for what is right in the end. If we dramatically alter the dynamics of war through the use of unmanned weapons then I believe free socities will dramatically alter it for the better. But let's face it, a Predator is a fancy RC plane and RC airplanes aren't rocket science. I don't care how sophisticated we try to make them. One day an unjust person, group of people, or government will possess these unmanned technologies we create, just like so many who got nukes. That's what I mean when I say that we can't make it easy to make war. But I guess I'm not actually ready to believe that unmanned combat will necessarily make wars easier to start.

Here is an irony that I have just realized. Suicide bombing is use of force whereby bombers sacrifice their lives in order to kill as many as possible. Umanned, remote controlled weapons are a use of force designed to sacrifice no lives, while killing as few people as possible. Indeed, is suicide bombing the antithesis of an umanned weapon "personalized" for one or two self-proclaimed terrorists? In a perfect world, anway. Suicide bombers might have us believe that a cause must be just if so many are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for it. But might a hopless and desparate man also be willing to give his own life for whatever cause, and perhaps more so if he believes his (perceived) hopeless existence can be redeemed through such actions? I confidently assert that the element of human self-sacrifice does not necessarily justify any cause for which the sacrifice is made. Similarly then, the non-existence of human sacrifice in the use of force should not, in and of itself, create injustice. Still, I can't help but have some innate skepticism toward anything that would seek to remove humans from any part of the human condition. I do not believe that mankind can artificially separate itself from violence. If it ever becomes critical to our survival, mankind must evolve away from violence.