> My suggestion was quite simple: Put that needed code number in a little capsule, and then implant that capsule right next to the heart of a volunteer. The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being. The President says, "George, I'm sorry but tens of millions must die." He has to look at someone and realize what death is—what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. It's reality brought home.
> When I suggested this to friends in the Pentagon they said, "My God, that's terrible. Having to kill someone would distort the President's judgment. He might never push the button."
> — Roger Fisher, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 1981
Take it to the extreme, and you have nazi atrocities and 'just following orders'.
The former is about operational readiness. If your army is unable to shoot at the enemy for whatever reason, you don't have a functional army. Wars are lost because of this (which leads to political concessions and loss of resources/influence/etc), and it's an important topic to consider when your goal is to maintain a standing army like the US.
The latter is, well, morality.
Of course, these two topics clash. How far do you go to ensure an obedient and effective army, while allowing leeway to refuse orders that are immoral?
Same army will be far more motivated to fight to defend the homeland than to kill a poor sod in a faraway land for unclear reason. So it's not a static quality.
And every time there is a fuckup from the higher ups it affects morale.
Recent headlines about the US killing 30 farmers make it easy to confuse the context. I'm sure the operator(s) involved with that operation are traumatized. But that's not really the discussion here.
As per the article
> The rates of drone pilot burn out were in fact higher than that of traditional pilots.
> Given that the target often posed no direct threat to the sniper, there was a moral dissonance about taking the life of someone who is no direct threat. This has obvious parallels to drone pilots.
> Couple this with the familiarity that the drone pilot might have developed through long-term surveillance, and the target becomes an informationally rich human, rather than simply a blip on a screen.
> Posing a threat to someone is often seen as a moral requirement in order for a solider to use lethal force against a target. However, the drone pilot is acting remotely, and they lose this sense of moral justification for their action.
> One important thing to recognise is that such moral injury is not dependent on the pilot actually committing something morally prohibited.
> For instance, if a soldier must use lethal force to protect an innocent family against an enemy soldier threatening the family's lives, the soldier's actions are typically deemed justified.
> However, given the features of drones, this moral justification might not be properly felt by its pilot.
I can't help but view this as similar to someone offering to work as a nurse "because they don't get sick".
Its different, because everyone can get sick. The more accurate analogy is someone offering to work as nurse because they are not afraid of blood.
I suspect people like that cause far more problems than they solve. How many war atrocities do you need to make the entire idea cost more than its worth?
And before someone jumps in that these are already atrocities, there's a huge difference between a mistake killing innocents or the idea of acceptable losses and slaughtering every man, woman and child in a village, because we've seen that before.
The war atrocities is either the issue of the leader making wrong decision or the soldier not following order.
Assuming the leader made the correct decision of killing and the solider who execute that order is a solider who doesn't have moral qualm about the killing then what is the issue ?
Beyond people having problems killing others, the nature of the job in question is that you will have visuals on people you are responsible for terminating, and there will be mistakes made, often on Intel you've provided ("it looked like a terrorist meeting to me, how was I to tell it was guys shooting the shit around a campfire?")
I used to think of myself how I think you think of yourself, where I thought I could view killing and death rationally. Since then I've had a few points where I had to deal with the death of people I knew and while I was somewhat clinically detached most the time, there were instances, sometimes months later, where I was overcome with emotion for the first time regarding that incident. There's a fine line between being able to rationalize your decisions and being in denial, and the human mind doesn't always act as you want or expect. And besides making people accidental murderers, how do you test for this? Seems like many people in the army would probably identify just as you are, yet we still have this problem.
I think the issue is you are viewing the killing solely from your own perspective and your own morality. While I understand it can be emotionally traumatic for you, for others it won't.
Just like killing animal, for some people it can be devastating and highly traumatic but for some other people it was nothing.
I've killed a rat with my own hands, I felt bad even though I never thought I would. It's different when you hear it squeak and bleed, then die in convulsions. I can't see myself killing a goat, let alone a person, unless I am fighting for my life.
A purely speculative opinion of how you would feel is of little value.
Giving people with no qualms or moral struggles with taking human life the tools to do so on a massive scale is an absolutely terrifying idea.
Yes Indiscriminate killing is a problem but that is a different problem. The article is in regards of actual pushing the button, I'm assuming the killing is already decided after careful judgement .
I'd imagine that someone with no qualms about taking human life would be far less likely to confirm the validity and accuracy of those justifications.
I don't think anyone wants drone operators who dismiss a group of children playing near a target because they don't place a value on human life.
Of course, thats the leader job to make sure that the information is not flawed and take into account the time decision being made and it's execution.
>I'd imagine that someone with no qualms about taking human life would be far less likely to confirm the validity and accuracy of those justifications
Sure but the solider, during actual combat situation, can't always second guess and debate your commander. There might be simply no time.
The solider utmost job is to execute the action that the leader has ordered.
Thats why you have chain of command, separation of concerns.
If every soldier or drone operator has to do the job of making strategic decision and operating drone at the same time, I think that would be too much cognitive load.
The DOD is pretty clear on this point ( https://tinyurl.com/yxqfwyrx [link to PDF of the DoD Law of War Manual] )
""" 5.10.2.4 Duty Not to Comply With Clearly Illegal Orders and the Principle of Proportionality. In the context of the principle of distinction, it would often be clear whether a given situation implicates the duty not to comply with clearly illegal orders to commit law of war violations – such as the duty of a subordinate to refrain from complying with an order to attack the civilian population. However, the nuances involved in applying the principle of proportionality could make it more difficult to know whether an order given is clearly illegal. The duty not to comply with orders that are clearly illegal also applies to violations of the principle of proportionality, in particular, the case of a commander who orders subordinates to conduct an attack that is expected to result in civilian casualties that the commander himself or herself acknowledges would be excessive """
You're absolutely right that the ability to make those assessments in the field isn't always going to be there, but that doesn't mean that there is no requirement or need for subordinates to be able to assess orders and actions.
I'm assuming the type of person who has no issue at all with taking life lacks (or has seriously damaged) capacity for empathy. Beyond the basic issues of morality and human decency, someone without the capacity for empathy is severely disadvantaged when it comes to assessment and awareness.
Being able to conceptualize and examine the intellectual and emotional state of another human provides a huge predictive advantage. Assessing someones potential to be a threat is far easier when you can understand what could potentially cause them to justify violence towards you.
To sum up, If you have no qualms with taking life, and you lack the capacity for empathy, you are not properly equipped to serve in the military.
"Further, there needs to be proper counselling and supports for pilots following use of lethal force.
While such pilots might be removed from physical risks, we have a moral responsibility to ensure not just that drones are used in ways that adhere to the ethics of warfare, but that the pilots are adequately supported in their roles."