THBT On Balance, Drone Warfare Should Not be Condemned
Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
The voting will end in:
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
"Drone Warfare" is the coordination of use of drones within war. From Wikipedia, "A drone strike is an air strike delivered by one or more unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAV) or weaponized commercial unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)". Drone warfare may consist of remote assassinations or multiple drone strikes in strategic areas, with little to no involvement of actual persons on the soil battling.
Drone Warfare and background info: "To the already complicated mix of counterterrorism as aggressive self-defense and morality in armed conflict, we must add the high technology arena of drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Many argue that the combination of modern technology and sophisticated intelligence analysis all but ensure that the UAV, or drone, policy is the most effective contemporary means to conduct operational counterterrorism. The theory sounds compelling and convincing: what is more attractive than killing terrorists from the air with the use of sleek technology while minimizing risk to ground forces? We are in an age where shiny technology and seemingly sophisticated intelligence gathering and analysis converge, potentially removing the human element—and humanity—from decision-making..." -- https://law.utah.edu/projects/drone-warfare/
Burden of proof is shared.
Pro will argue we should encourage further and/or keep drone warfare.
Con will argue we should condemn, and perhaps eventually abolish use of drones in war if possible.
Condemn: to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condemn)
On balance: taking both bad and good together
I can easily take the opposite side, just comment and I will switch.
Con claims there is no real example that the drones prevented friendly fire, but completely ignores the Brookings' ideas about drones' precision and the ability to avoid needless casualties.
Next, Con claims that Drone warfare has not significantly changed the war, but the war does not necessarily have to be resolved for drones to be justified.
perhaps a nuke could instantly end the war, but would cause massive suffering among civilians. So ending the war is not necessarily the most important goal we have in mind.
And we are still doing the greatest good by stopping the terrorists from harming people the best we can.
Unless Con can produce another miracle solution that significantly stops the war, it still seems that drone is the best solution possible.
But the terrorists and the dangerous people have threatened the safety of US and allies. By striking first and preventing them from doing further harm, how is this not self defense?
the terrorists and the dangerous people
He doesn't show us what happens as a result of the corruption -- what negative effects precisely do we receive? He doesn't say.
prevent PTSD among soldiers
leaders may justify terrible decisions made due to emotional distress
It doesn't seem to make sense that the more logical being, the robot, would somehow enhance selfishness and greed, two human emotions.
the vast majority of warfare is from US, and we still value innocents and not harming bystanders
I see no issue with mere "terrorization" and "Fear" as long as the citizens actually suffer no harm.
Wouldn't any kind of war declaration cause terrorists to strike back?
it seems nearly impossible to me that the US would stop any wars outright, especially with their commitment already to stop terrorism
I reiterate my self-defense argument to prove that US was justified in starting the war in the first place.
As con has used zero sources to support any of his arguments, I ask voters to take them with a grain of salt