The Ethics of Computer Assisted Warfare

Everyone knows the concept of Computer Assisted Drawing (or CAD), and how it has become a
boon for the world of architecture and engineering. There are practically no ethical implications about
shifting from a manual, hand drawn world to one that is dominated by proficiency in CAD programs and
3D modeling programs. However, drawing and engineering isnt fraught with ethical consequences the
same way warfare is. Warfare in itself is ethically dubious and to some, having computers assist us,
whether it is through cyber warfare or drone strikes, seemingly changes the character of warfare.
However, the end result of these actions, whether done through manned strikes or by cyber strike,
remains the same; the destruction of some objective to weaken the enemy. Therefore, the ethical
implications should remain the same.
Warfare itself has always been fraught with ethical issues, whether due to the reasons for going
to war, how to cope with being at war, or dealing with the aftereffects of war. The idea of war is to
inflict damage and complete whatever objectives might be at hand. Even at the very beginnings of
society, people fought each other for claims to territory, out of both national hubris and the need to
survive. As civilization has advanced, the reasons to go to war grew, and with it, the ethical issues. Was it
worth the loss of life and living to secure a livelihood for your people? In the current environment,
people would be much more inclined to answer in the affirmative for that reason for war than the
justification for the crusades (religious fervor) or the 2
nd
Iraqi War. Even if the first variable, the loss of
life, remains the same, many in war take a consequentialist view to justify their actions, justifying why a
loss of life, something considered morally reprehensible, is suddenly glorified in a state of war.
The greater ethical dilemma that tends to confound the everyday person isnt so much the
justification of war, but the execution of said actions. Few would argue that the extermination of the
Jewish race or the murder of 76 million Chinese people during Mao Zedongs reign is morally degenerate
and couldnt be justified by anything but the most warped moral codes. However, how Stalins Order
#227, which famously decreed Not one step back, called for any unauthorized retreaters to be shot on
the spot, these days considered degenerate, could actually be ethically defended. A consequentialist
would consider the order a valid way for galvanizing the soldiers on the front and perhaps even
necessary for the end result (victory). A deontologist, on the other hand, would consider it repugnant;
that even with a positive end result, the methodology for reaching such a result is not worth it. These
issues were not limited to sweeping strategic directives from dictators; even the lowly sergeant
occasionally has to deal with issues regarding the taking and caring of prisoners, and whether its worth
the additional strain on their unit.
A quote from the game Fallout, released in the 1990s reads War, war never changes, and
for the reasons and consequences, that may be true, but in the actually execution of war, more has
changed in the last 100 years than it had in the 3 millennia prior, due to major technological
advancements, from the advent of the rifle to the creation of nuclear weaponry. In fact, raging debate
occurs even to this day about the usage of the atomic bomb. Was it worth the near instant destruction
of a city and over 100,000 of its inhabitants just to end the war quicker? Would it have been more
morally acceptable to invade Japan with an amphibious force? The consequentialist would argue that in
comparison to the probable loss of life and lengthening of the war, it would be more ethically
acceptable to drop the atomic bomb, while a deontologist would argue that the dropping of the atomic
bombs was morally bankrupt, and even among options in warfare; this is unusually insensitive and
immoral.
Technology has hit a new age however, an age where humans are assisted by computers to do
everything, from processing food to yes, killing other humans and harming other nations. You need not
look much further than the current controversy over the usage of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs.
These relatively silent airborne machines are still piloted by humans, but the humans are located in
some remote command post potentially hundreds, if not thousands of miles away from the UAVs
operating airspace. Iran has apparently shot down at least one UAV flying over its airspace, bringing into
question whether or not these drones are in violation of sovereign airspace the same way a manned
aircraft would. Then there was the assassination of American-born and raised Muslim cleric Anwar al-
Awlaki
Nations have always sought for ways to make warfare easier for them and more devastating for the
enemy party. Whether it is the introduction of the bow and arrow, or the pike, or the machine gun, or
the bomber, we have developed more and more effective tools to combat enemies.