A squad of American soldiers are pinned down by sniper on the roof of a building of a village in Afghanistan. The squad has two options to deal with the threat. Their first is to have a nearby American sniper team in the area kill the enemy sniper. The second is for a member of the squad to use a Switchblade “kamikaze” drone to kill the sniper with a small explosive. Assuming both options have a low risk of collateral damage and accomplish the same goal, the two choices though differing in practicality, are morally equal.
A drone is a tool. Like an axe, a spade, or thirty million dollar fighter jet, it is neither moral or immoral, but it can be used morally, immorally, or with moral neutrality. While the use of drones for other purposes particularly …show more content…
Modern asymmetrical warfare makes civilian deaths unavoidable, but powerful state actors like the United States still have a moral imperative to minimize such deaths whenever possible. While drone strikes do result in civilian casualties, all other actions that can be taken by the American military to swiftly neutralize a terrorist target also bear substantial risks of civilian casualties. A ground raid by American special forces not only risks the lives of American military personnel, but civilians caught in the cross fire of a potential firefight. According to Air Force statistics on airstrikes in Afganistan, drone strikes on average result in lower civilian casualties than those conducted by manned aircraft (July 14 Post on Class Home). Indirect action against the threat through the encouragement of local forces has even more potential for civilian casualties if such operations are actively carried out. During past Pakistani army offensives against militants on its northwestern, 46% of those killed have been civilians more than double the high-end estimates of American drone strikes (MORAL
A drone is a tool. Like an axe, a spade, or thirty million dollar fighter jet, it is neither moral or immoral, but it can be used morally, immorally, or with moral neutrality. While the use of drones for other purposes particularly …show more content…
Modern asymmetrical warfare makes civilian deaths unavoidable, but powerful state actors like the United States still have a moral imperative to minimize such deaths whenever possible. While drone strikes do result in civilian casualties, all other actions that can be taken by the American military to swiftly neutralize a terrorist target also bear substantial risks of civilian casualties. A ground raid by American special forces not only risks the lives of American military personnel, but civilians caught in the cross fire of a potential firefight. According to Air Force statistics on airstrikes in Afganistan, drone strikes on average result in lower civilian casualties than those conducted by manned aircraft (July 14 Post on Class Home). Indirect action against the threat through the encouragement of local forces has even more potential for civilian casualties if such operations are actively carried out. During past Pakistani army offensives against militants on its northwestern, 46% of those killed have been civilians more than double the high-end estimates of American drone strikes (MORAL