If anything is moral in war, this technology is at the friendlier endby AC Grayling / July 18, 2013 / Leave a comment
Published in August 2013 issue of Prospect Magazine
Almost every technological advance in the means of warfare brings new ethical problems. In the mid-19th century, a Hague Conference outlawed newly-invented bullets that split apart inside a victim’s body to increase the incapacitating effect; in the 1890s—before heavier-than-air flight had become possible—another Hague convention outlawed aerial bombardment (it had in mind the throwing of grenades from balloons). After the First World War chemical weapons were outlawed. And since the Second World War much of the focus has been on limiting the spread of nuclear weapons.
Thus the vain attempt to limit the extent of harm that technologies of warfare threaten. Throughout history it has been technology that has made the chief difference in warfare—the spear, the metallurgy of swords and shields, armour, the crossbow, the arquebus, artillery, rapid-fire small arms, aircraft, missiles, the logistical equipment used in moving forces and supplies, all represent the inventiveness of urgency in times of danger, and whoever had the superior technology has had the better chance of prevailing.
Asymmetric warfare, in which small groups of insurgents can encumber huge military resources of an orthodox kind, bucks this trend. But the technologists are not wholly without answers. One is the unmanned drone aircraft, used for surveillance and offensive engagement in circumstances and terrains where conventional forces are at a huge disadvantage.