Ethics Assignment 1300 Words

Ethical Reasoning

Robert Ponton

UAGC

PHI 208

Professor Wiseman

6/12/2022

Ethical Question

Is it acceptable for a nation to use drone strikes on suspect terrorists, even when they are citizens of other nations with whom we are not in conflict?

Introduction

Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the use of drone strikes has been disputed. This terrible tragedy led the United States to the decision that we could utilize our relatively new drone technology to carry out such operations for us instead of risking the lives of pilots in distant and dangerous air attacks. The ability to hit a target almost anywhere, at any time, from any location on the earth, is a top priority for the United States Air Force. It's a widely held misconception that drone strikes cause a huge number of casualties among the civilian population. There is no other weapon system that can match the precision we get from drone assaults, and it has been shown that we can use drone strikes in highly populated areas without causing any collateral damage. When it comes to attacking targets hidden within buildings or other structures, drones have lately shown to be highly successful. Because the payload is so little and the ordinance is computer directed, we can drop a bomb through a building's roof and kill everyone inside while leaving no survivors. This was proved during the Gulf War, when we showed how precise our bombs were by dropping a bomb through the chimney of a home. The idea that drone attacks are carried out with little or no regard for human life has been propagated by the mainstream media, which claims that anytime an act of war is carried out, civilians are killed in great numbers. This is not the case. As a result of careful planning, none of the airstrikes I've seen have resulted in the death of a single innocent civilian, and each one completely wiped out the target without causing any damage to nearby buildings.

Position Statement

Drone strikes conducted by the United States are the most advanced form of airstrike that the United States possesses. With the technology that we possess, we are able to precisely verify, mark, and target terrorists in order to eliminate them without endangering any innocent people in the surrounding area. No other country in the world can make the same claim.

Reasons in Support of Your Position

It is estimated that more than 300 innocent people have been killed as a direct consequence of drone assaults between the years 2015 and the current day. The accuracy of the statistic is directly proportional to the reliability of the source from which it was obtained. On the other side, there have been approximately 10,000 fatalities in Afghanistan alone that have been ascribed to terrorist assaults. This one piece of evidence ought to be sufficient to sway your opinion on the reliability of our airstrikes. The challenge that arises when seeking to get rid of terrorists is that they almost always bring their families with them, making their loved ones vulnerable to the full force of an assault (Jaeger & Siddique, 2018).

Opposing Position Statement

Why should we allow airstrikes to continue if they endanger the lives of women and children who had no involvement in the conflict in the first place?

Reasons in Support of the Opposing Position

How is it possible for us to tolerate any form of accidental casualties? It is entirely unacceptable for anybody to suffer an injury for doing nothing, with the exception of those who are actively acting inappropriately. In the United States, this is referred regarded as "acceptable loss," but in the United Kingdom, it is called "murder."

References

Jaeger, D. A., & Siddique, Z. (2018). Are drone strikes effective in Afghanistan and Pakistan? On the dynamics of violence between the United States and the Taliban. CESifo Economic Studies, 64(4), 667-697.