I found this article related to Germany's use of armed drones in military conflict. I found this article interesting because Germany's decision to begin using armed drones in military conflict could greatly effect NATO's military actions. Germany is an influential member of NATO as well as guiding force in Western Europe. Germany's financial capabilities contribute to its prominent status in NATO. There is a debate within Germany's parliament that is reflective of the contrasting views of NATO members as well. The Right-Side of Merkel's parliament supports the use of drones in combat. The Right-Side of Merkel's government claims that drones should be used because of the present technology available. Also, drones would serve in completing the 'mission' in Afghanistan. Merkel's Left-Side of the government called for a "broad societal and parliamentary debate about the ethical and legal limitations to the use of combat drones" before a rash decision is made concerning developing advanced military technology.
If Germany does eventually decide to use drones in combat, this could potentially influence future military procedures of NATO. NATO member states with less resources would most likely provide resistance to the potential use of drones but the member states with amble resources, such as Germany, would most likely possess more ability to convince NATO to consider using drones in combat. Especially considering the United States' use of drones since 1995.
http://www.dw.de/german-government-to-outfit-military-with-armed-drones/a-16551558
I found this really interesting, because I've been stuck in the middle of whether or not I think the usage of drones is ethical as well. It would be interesting to know what other big countries are thinking about Germany's decision. I feel like in the end Germany will begin using drones which would definitely change warfare in the big picture. The idea of countries using drone warfare could be very detrimental to how easily a country might be willing to begin a war especially on a country that is weaker and doesn't have this type of weapon.
ReplyDeleteI think you do bring up a very interesting point regarding the idea of countries using drone warfare as detrimental. If drone warfare does become more common among the more influential countries in regards to global policy, military action could differently occur more frequently. Countries would no longer have to consider the impact to their military/ resources/ etc that particular military action could inflect if drones are used. It could be said that drones could make particular countries more hostile/ offensive towards one another, which would be very detrimental for relations among countries.
ReplyDeleteThis debate is not something new, and has gone on in the United States for over two decades. The way I see it, the use of armed UAVs in NATO's modern combat environment(Afghanistan, etc.) is no different, no more potentially unethical, than performing the same missions with piloted aircraft. The enemy combatants the ISAF is targeting in Afghanistan have little, if any, means of defense against airborne strikes. The dangers pilots face are miniscule compared to those they would face in fighting a modern military force. As such, I do not see any problem - or any foreseeable change - in NATO/Allied policy regarding the use of armed UAVs in conflicts similar to the current Afghan campaign: as pilots' lives are rarely ever threatened, the ethical question concerning the use of UAVs becomes rather moot. The true ethical debate, with the potential to shape warfare for years to come, may never arise until two UAV-capable nations meet in combat.
ReplyDelete