Would You Like To Play A Game?

more_accurate.png
 
IIRC the first gulf war was called the video game war by many in the media due to the release of cockpit, gun and missile cam footage.
 
It's not morally different from leaving a bomb in a train station. Innocents will die but you the attacker won't have to be there to see it.
 
Morally, I don't think it's anything like it at all. Not even close.
 
Glaucus said:
Morally, I don't think it's anything like it at all. Not even close.
Click to expand...
How about something slightly less random then. How about when the motorcycle gangs were fighting for control of Montreal. (That is exactly the same as when governments fight for control of geographical areas with the only exception being that there is already another authority in the same region with greater resources).

When they plant bombs to kill other gang members those are targeted automated killing devices. However, there is going to be collateral damage some of the time because you simply can't control all the variables. You have to accept that innocents may die - but because you have automated the process it doesn't become directly your fault because you aren't deliberately picking the other victims and you don't perform the killing act upon them yourself.

Automated drone attacks against "enemies" are exactly the same. They absolve the killers to a certain extent because no-one is directly responsible for the collateral damage that must inevitably occur. Responsibility is diminished because it is so widely shared.

Just because the automated drone killing machine is so much more expensive than the ignition switch triggered hidden explosive doesn't wipe out the equivalence.

The fact that both technologies are intended to kill targeted individuals in the first place is morally reprehensible - it's not just that they can accidentally do evil, it's also that when working to plan they also do evil. The difference between the sides is not one of good versus evil but the sophistication of the evil they both commit.
 
It's not the device at all, it's the plan itself. Specifically targeting civilians is different then specifically targeting combatants. Your argument that if the combatants are mixed in with non-combatants then those who choose to attack the combatants and accidentally kill non-combatants are on equal footing as those who specifically target non combatants isn't something I agree with. However I would say that there may be a case for negligence, it's still not on the same level really as the end goals are different. Not only that, the morality of combatants who purposefully hide amongst non-combatants must also be brought into question. Intentional use of human shields may in fact be on the same level as those who don't take them into consideration before pulling the trigger. These types of questions are as interesting as they are complex, trying to trivialize it down to such a simple equality does not do the issue justice.

At any rate, how I interpreted this article is that it's about robot drones on the battlefield, meaning, identifying and attacking far more basic things like tanks and specific air fields and stuff like that - in an already live war. Certainly using optical recognition is a great alternative to GPS guidance systems which can be attacked in orbit or perhaps have their signals interfered with. I suspect a human will always need to make a call in places like Afghanistan or Pakistan.
 
Glaucus said:
Specifically targeting civilians is different then specifically targeting combatants.
Click to expand...
That's not what I was talking about in my reply.
At any rate, how I interpreted this article is that it's about robot drones on the battlefield, meaning, identifying and attacking far more basic things like tanks and specific air fields and stuff like that - in an already live war.
Click to expand...
Sure. That may be how you read it but it's not how I read it when they talk about face recognition. What they are talking about here is an assassination tool and drones have already been used for assassination and they have already taken innocent bystanders while doing so. To me that is no different than bikers trying to kill each other with explosives and blowing up the neighbourhood kids as a foreseeable accident. Calling it war doesn't help because war is a crime in itself. It can't be used to excuse the crimes committed within itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top