# Are Drones An Ethical Choice?
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438
**Category:** Society, Government, and Economics
**Created:** [June 3, 2013, 9:13pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438 "2013-06-03T21:13:37Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@tentative](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/tentative)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2013, 9:13pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438/1 "2013-06-03T21:13:37Z")
Last week Tab and I did a short debate on the subject with the idea that others would comment and declare one of us the debate winner. Only one person wanted to make comments, so we’re posting the gist of the debate here to see if anyone would care to discuss and be judgemental of the subject in general and our efforts specifically.
I started the debate with:
> [@](#):
>
> Well, since I proposed first, I’ll go first. I think that the first step is to clarify the parameters a bit since ethics so often get’s confused with morality and people express their morality as ethics. For the purpose of this debate, I wish to avoid morality, which I see as one’s personal beliefs and behaviors and instead look to the standards of behavior or societal rules as a system promoted by a society as being “ethical”. Morality is self control while ethical behaviors may be other dependent. You may counsel your sister to not have an abortion for moral reasons, but support abortion rights as an ethical societal choice. In the same way, cold blooded murder by an armed drone can be considered morally repugnant, and yet an ethical choice for the protection of a nation or any social grouping.
>
> Deciding the criteria of that which is ethical is a bit murky, but there is a common every day rule that seems to be accepted and should be the model for any authority charged with the use of weaponized drones. That rule is to react, not act. Proposing to do evil, to break a law, or in any way otherwise just considered threatening is not the same as acting on such a proposal. Showing a propensity toward violence isn’t the same as being violent, and a drone “strike” should never be authorized unless the target has participated in violence. To say it another way, scouring the internet looking for extremist sites promoting violence may bear watching, but authorizing a drone killing waits until the target has carried out an act of violence. This rule is in keeping with the notion that one is innocent until proven guilty, and falls within those lines we would call ethical. If drone capabilities are kept within these guidelines, then such killings can be considered an ethical choice.
>
> Additionally, one must look at all other available options to insure an ethical perspective. Should an individual or group of individuals commit an act of violence, then one can declare a state of war, send in full military forces to capture or kill the target group. Or, one can use both surveillance and armed drones to seek out and destroy the intended targets. The chances of large numbers of civilian casualties, destruction of infrastructure, and military personnel losses will be much less when drones are used as opposed to “boots on the ground”. It is far more ethical to use drone technology than full military strength to prevent large scale loss of life on either side of conflict.
Tab responded with:
> [@](#):
>
> The argument for drones is pretty much the same argument as for any of the new smart weapon systems. Less people killed, the right people killed. Not pretty, but makes perfect sense; better to snipe, than to blindly shotgun everything with your fingers crossed. Very surgical, like Dr. House with a kalashnikov, shooting cancer, unconventional - but great TV. Or “Wall-e goes to Iraq” maybe. Oh, hang on, Wall-e has already gone to Iraq.
>
> Well, that saved me half-an-hour on photoshop. Thank you internet.
>
> On the small-scale, perfect-world end - clear legitimate target, perfect deployment - Tentative’s gonna win this one. Hands down. Press-button, destroy evil-doer - easy as a credit-card swipe at the mall, except you don’t take home new shoes.
>
> But on the big scale, with a quick squint around the corner of the future, drone-armies are bad news.
>
> But first.
>
> Imagine there is a fat kid. I mean fucking huge. Blimplike in dimension. Put a gondola on that mother and fly him to Europe. But fat kid’s trying, he’s watching what he eats, trying to reduce the titanic arsenal of food he’s got stashed in the fridge, by erm, not buying it rather than eating it. Get slim, save money. Future’s rosey. Throw the gondola away, all transatlantic flights cancelled.
>
> I come along. Give him a big smile. Bring in a big ole box. It’s the Cheapsnax 3000™ food-dispener unit. Sits comfortably by the fridge - hell the deluxé version follows you around the house - don’t even have to get off the sofa - primo smart-snax technology. Your ideal hunger solution - auto-clean function to tidy up collateral-crumb spillage. Assorted pastel colours, interior-decorator approved. Comes with auto-stock support function - you need never actually buy your own food again, no more painful waddles to the mall, consume endlessly from the comfort of your own home.
>
> Unethical…? I mean, I haven’t put a gun to his head or anything. He doesn’t have to abuse it. I mean, if used wisely, it could save him time and money. If he explodes all over his appartment 6 months later it ain’t nothing to do with me.
>
> I was talking this over with a mate at work, first thing he said was “Whoo, cool, but expensive.” But - Let’s look at some figures.
>
> Not expensive. Roughly half as cheap to make at first glance. But look deeper, and the advantages of drone-soldiers to flesh soldiers are endless. Humans are badly suited to war. Don’t need to grow a drone over a 20 year period. Turn 'em out by the 1000, week in, week out. Don’t need to send them to boot camp. Downloading in progress. Don’t get post traumatic stress disorder. Don’t need paying, nor a pension.
>
> Make them modular. If one gets immobilized, it doesn’t sit there crying for its lost legs and bleeding all over the place. It becomes a sentry, patiently pot-shotting targets till it runs out of ammo. Then it becomes a stationary mine. Blows up if you come too close. Gps locator chips means it can be found even if rendered completely inoperable. Use the modules left to rebuild other drones. Plug and play. Kill a flesh soldier and he’s 100% dead. Wound one and he’s a burden on his comrades, even better. RPG a drone and maybe you’ll kill it only 20% dead. And it goes right on trucking.
>
> And ammo. Humans are shit at killing other humans. Let’s ask statisticians.
>
> In Vietnam, 50,000 rounds were used for each kill, a three-fold increase over WWII levels.
>
> There is an amazing (and startling) statistic out of Iraq and Afghanistan: the United States has fired an estimated 250,000 bullets for every insurgent killed. [source: reddit]
>
> Wow. Just Wow. 5.56mm bullet manufacture and cleanup costs [ecomass.com/pdf/bullet.pdf](http://ecomass.com/pdf/bullet.pdf). Green bullets, who knew…?
>
> Drone-soldier however, could do better. Maybe not one shot one kill, not initially anyway. But it’s a software/hardware problem, and problems get solved. The two big advantages here are:
>
> (1) Scalability. With humans, you have to train each individually. Like making chairs for a living. You make a chair, you sell it. You make another chair, you sell it. You make one more, you sell it too. Write a drone trainer computer program however… Write it once, upload it a bazillion times while you sit back and throw cigar-butts at the chair-maker.
>
> (2) Lack of conflict between orders and instinct. There’s a joke. The bare bones are - General sends soldier into room with gun. Tells soldier to kill occupant as test of loyalty. [Gun fires blanks btw. it’s only a psych test]. First two refuse. Last one comes out [he’s usually of comical ethnic descent - Irish or something] breathing heavily. General says “Wtf…?” Last guy says “Well sir, the gun shot blanks so I had to kill them with a chair…”
>
> Hilarity ensues.
>
> Why’s it funny though…? Someone died afterall. Died by chair even, one of the most horrible deaths of all. It’s funny because humans have a natural aversion to killing other humans. Look at the propagandic lengths that are needed before killing strangers X,Y & Z begins to seem like a good idea, and the still further lengths required before the job gets done. There is always a war of public relations before the shooting version starts.
>
> But drone boy…? Nah. Just upload new targetting details, insert ammo into hopper A.
>
> I could do this all day. But boiled down, drones, once out of their rather comical infancy, will become an automated war-package. Press button recieve bacon, erm, victory. The Cheapbang 3000™ Death-dispenser.
>
> Is it unethical in itself…? On the scale of individual units and individual missions…? No, no more than an axe chopping trees. Is it unethical on a wider scale, given humanity’s frailities in the face of temptation…? Hell yes. No more trees and squirrels crying on treestumps.
You can read the full debate at: [viewtopic.php?f=31&t=182699](http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=182699)
Drones aren’t going away any time soon and their uses are a bit problematic. So let us know what you thunk…
---
### Author:  [@Hobbes\_Choice](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Hobbes_Choice)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2013, 9:37pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438/2 "2013-06-03T21:37:16Z")
Are any weapons that kill without consequence for the user, ethical?
Remote killing can be perpetrated without risk or responsibility.
There is no basis for doubt.
Such weapons are amoral, their use immoral.
---
### Author:  [@tentative](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/tentative)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 4:30am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438/3 "2013-06-04T04:30:54Z")
[nbcnews.com/technology/domin … 6C10182466](http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/dominos-domicopter-drone-can-deliver-two-large-pepperonis-6C10182466) I figure about a 5 lb carrying capacity. Two large pizzas or… 2 lbs of C4 or equivalent, 2 lbs assorted small metal projectiles, and 1 lb of packaging and radio gear to trigger the “delivery”. Pizza anyone? 😮
---
### Author:  [@uglypeoplefucking](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/uglypeoplefucking)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 8:40pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438/4 "2013-06-04T20:40:44Z")
i agree with Tent - What this or that moral system has to say regarding the use of drones is really beside the point. You’re talking about warfare - and the moral rules are always distorted in times of war. People will get killed one way or another. However, we can set practical goals for war, including killing as few people as possible, and then targeted assassinations performed by robots actually become good things, because fewer people have to die. In a twisted way, using drones actually saves lives, and, morally speaking, saving lives is usually considered a good thing. So in considering wether to use drones we can adhere to strict moral guidelines regarding what is or isn’t an acceptable way to kill someone, or we can go with trying our best to minimize the number of people who die. The latter seems more sensible to me.
---
### Author:  [@Tab](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Tab)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 9:53pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438/5 "2013-06-04T21:53:33Z")
> [@upf](#):
>
> we can go with trying our best to minimize the number of people who die.
Trouble is, you end up with a queue.
---
### Author:  [@uglypeoplefucking](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/uglypeoplefucking)
#### Post date: [June 5, 2013, 9:16pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438/6 "2013-06-05T21:16:29Z")
Stupid me, i don’t quite get what you mean.
---
### Author:  [@Hobbes\_Choice](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Hobbes_Choice)
#### Post date: [June 5, 2013, 10:17pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438/7 "2013-06-05T22:17:26Z")
> [@uglypeoplefucking](#):
>
> i agree with Tent - What this or that moral system has to say regarding the use of drones is really beside the point. You’re talking about warfare - and the moral rules are always distorted in times of war. People will get killed one way or another. However, we can set practical goals for war, including killing as few people as possible, and then targeted assassinations performed by robots actually become good things, because fewer people have to die. In a twisted way, using drones actually saves lives, and, morally speaking, saving lives is usually considered a good thing. So in considering wether to use drones we can adhere to strict moral guidelines regarding what is or isn’t an acceptable way to kill someone, or we can go with trying our best to minimize the number of people who die. The latter seems more sensible to me.
Maybe it has not yet occurred to you that the main recipient of drones is country with whom the USA is NOT at war.
---
### Author:  [@Tab](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Tab)
#### Post date: [June 5, 2013, 10:32pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438/8 "2013-06-05T22:32:08Z")
Nah, sorry upf. lazy me, for not explaining myself. Gotten too used to the usual spamhead responses to risk tendonitus without reason.
Anyway. Both you and Tents are coming at this from the “using drones actually saves lives” end. Kill the bad guy in the crowd, rather than the whole crowd to kill the bad guy. But that’s the band-aid perspective. If someone’s got acne, squeezing the spots as they appear is no solution.
Imagine an escalator. Drone at the top, very precisely, and with no fallout, shoots the bad guy on the uppermost step. Pam ! Down he goes and falls to the wayside. But there’s another. Pam ! Another corpse. And now another head appears…
The drone is not enough to destroy the escalator. Nor to stop others being built. Foreign policies create self-sustaining systems. These systems, for as long as the initial conditions remain the same, create the same scenarios, and the same characters to play in them. The characters to some extent co-evolve over time, but the nature of their relationship to each other does not change. They remain in opposition, because that is what the system demands of them - a bottle factory production line does not spontaneously start churning out fluffy hippos.
All drones will do is force those that they shoot at to mutate in form and tactics until the status quo is restored. And don’t forget, in order to justify its existance, any weapon needs a target. It is in its interest to seek them out and if none can be found, to create them anew for each consecutive itteration of its own evolution.
The death goes on, until both the target and the weapon are defunct, removed by the collapse of the system that sustains them.
---
### Author:  [@uglypeoplefucking](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/uglypeoplefucking)
#### Post date: [June 6, 2013, 11:15am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438/9 "2013-06-06T11:15:03Z")
> [@Hobbes Choice](#):
>
> > [@uglypeoplefucking](#):
> >
> > i agree with Tent - What this or that moral system has to say regarding the use of drones is really beside the point. You’re talking about warfare - and the moral rules are always distorted in times of war. People will get killed one way or another. However, we can set practical goals for war, including killing as few people as possible, and then targeted assassinations performed by robots actually become good things, because fewer people have to die. In a twisted way, using drones actually saves lives, and, morally speaking, saving lives is usually considered a good thing. So in considering wether to use drones we can adhere to strict moral guidelines regarding what is or isn’t an acceptable way to kill someone, or we can go with trying our best to minimize the number of people who die. The latter seems more sensible to me.
>
> Maybe it has not yet occurred to you that the main recipient of drones is country with whom the USA is NOT at war.
That’s true, but the US has declared war on various non-state actors, many of whom happen to be located/hiding in said country, so the drone strikes are still acts of war, even if they take place within the borders of an (ostensible) US ally.
---
### Author:  [@tentative](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/tentative)
#### Post date: [June 6, 2013, 5:31pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438/10 "2013-06-06T17:31:55Z")
> [@Tab](#):
>
> Nah, sorry upf. lazy me, for not explaining myself. Gotten too used to the usual spamhead responses to risk tendonitus without reason.
>
> Anyway. Both you and Tents are coming at this from the “using drones actually saves lives” end. Kill the bad guy in the crowd, rather than the whole crowd to kill the bad guy. But that’s the band-aid perspective. If someone’s got acne, squeezing the spots as they appear is no solution.
>
> Imagine an escalator. Drone at the top, very precisely, and with no fallout, shoots the bad guy on the uppermost step. Pam ! Down he goes and falls to the wayside. But there’s another. Pam ! Another corpse. And now another head appears…
>
> The drone is not enough to destroy the escalator. Nor to stop others being built. Foreign policies create self-sustaining systems. These systems, for as long as the initial conditions remain the same, create the same scenarios, and the same characters to play in them. The characters to some extent co-evolve over time, but the nature of their relationship to each other does not change. They remain in opposition, because that is what the system demands of them - a bottle factory production line does not spontaneously start churning out fluffy hippos.
>
> All drones will do is force those that they shoot at to mutate in form and tactics until the status quo is restored. And don’t forget, in order to justify its existance, any weapon needs a target. It is in its interest to seek them out and if none can be found, to create them anew for each consecutive itteration of its own evolution.
>
> The death goes on, until both the target and the weapon are defunct, removed by the collapse of the system that sustains them.
Geebus! It sounds like you’re suggesting that we stop killing each other. 😮 As a red-blooded amurrican that would upset the way we do things. If we stopped killing, then we wouldn’t need guns, and the second amendment would be null and void. You can’t mess with my constitutional rights! And just what would all the religious extremists do if it weren’t for killing? I mean, the notion that god is on our side would disappear. You’re asking way too much. You have to look at the positive side. Drones are just a clever way to aid population control. :-"
---
### Author:  [@xhightension](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/xhightension)
#### Post date: [June 6, 2013, 5:46pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438/11 "2013-06-06T17:46:00Z")
> [@Tab](#):
>
> The death goes on, until both the target and the weapon are defunct, removed by the collapse of the system that sustains them.
True, humanity has drove its values down into a hole, but is there a solution?
---
### Author:  [@xhightension](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/xhightension)
#### Post date: [June 6, 2013, 5:46pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438/12 "2013-06-06T17:46:01Z")
> [@Tab](#):
>
> The death goes on, until both the target and the weapon are defunct, removed by the collapse of the system that sustains them.
True, humanity has drove its values down into a hole, but is there a solution?
---
### Author:  [@Tab](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Tab)
#### Post date: [June 6, 2013, 8:38pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438/13 "2013-06-06T20:38:04Z")
> [@xhightension](#):
>
> > [@Tab](#):
> >
> > The death goes on, until both the target and the weapon are defunct, removed by the collapse of the system that sustains them.
>
> True, humanity has driven its values down into a hole, but is there a solution?
Not if no-one’s looking.
> [@Tents](#):
>
> Geebus! It sounds like you’re suggesting that we stop killing each other. 😮 As a red-blooded amurrican that would upset the way we do things. If we stopped killing, then we wouldn’t need guns, and the second amendment would be null and void. You can’t mess with my constitutional rights! And just what would all the religious extremists do if it weren’t for killing? I mean, the notion that god is on our side would disappear. You’re asking way too much. You have to look at the positive side. Drones are just a clever way to aid population control. :-"
You remember I’ve talked about stereotypes - the bully, the nerd…? The bully solves the problems he faces in early life with force, the nerd by smarts…? And how, because over time they become specialists at using force, coercion; and smarts, diplomacy they both conciously and unconsciously seek out the problems that they can solve with their specialities rather than the ones requiring skills they have not developed…? And how again, if they come across a problem that does not match their skill sets, and cannot be side-stepped they will attempt to re-frame the problem into such that it can be solved with their specialities…?
Well, it works for societies too.
Weapons are deeply ingrained in Western culture, the USA most of all. Would you say it is reasonable to suggest you have become specialists in this respect…? If so, would it also be reasonable to suggest that your familiarity with the use of weapons impinges on how you, as a culture, tend to frame the problems facing you…?
Say I’m a heroin addict. I run out. I gots the shakes. The pain’s creeping in. Is the answer to my problem more heroin…? Better herion…? Heroin with less side-effects…? Less collateral cellular and mental damage…?
You’ve gotta see the deep craziness of saying “better weapons save lives.”
You’ve also got to see how habit forming the gun industry is. A gun for every situation. A new situation pops up. What’s the first question that springs to mind…?
“Hmm. Now which gun will fix this…?”
---
### Author:  [@tentative](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/tentative)
#### Post date: [June 6, 2013, 9:41pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438/14 "2013-06-06T21:41:32Z")
Tab asks:
> [@](#):
>
> Weapons are deeply ingrained in Western culture, the USA most of all. Would you say it is reasonable to suggest you have become specialists in this respect…? If so, would it also be reasonable to suggest that your familiarity with the use of weapons impinges on how you, as a culture, tend to frame the problems facing you…?
You’re painting with a 4" house brush… Yeah, the U.S. is probably the leader in having loose guns laying around. BUT… Name one society that doesn’t use violence as the final solution. Uhhh… Does tear gas and water cannons sound familiar? You’re trying to elevate the discussion to one of violence or not-violence. That’s fine with me because until we find ways to teach non-violence at every level of human interaction, drones or whatever evil technology comes next will always be both used and abused.
You see, I want to agree with you. I too have seen the power of people when they say enough is enough. I’m one of those “old hippies” from the 60’s. BUT… As I watched the dreams co-opted and killed by the necessities of food, clothing, and shelter, I became a pragmatic dreamer. How’s that for a contradiction? 😛
So the final solution can be discussed, planned, and started, but I’m about what happens in the meantime. I hate the intrusion of drones, both for reasons of privacy as well as not wanting to be nuked by one. By themselves, there is no way they can “fix” things, but they can make violence less destructive overall. I ain’t stupid (well, maybe I am) and I know full well that the technology will be misused over and over by every nation on earth plus every pissant extremist group out to make a name for themselves or their cause. Still, I think it’s a step forward in reducing the body count in every @#$\*^!! conflict.
Looking ahead, people may wake up when they understand that there is no place left that they can’t be “reached” by the technology. when there is no place on the planet that is safe from killing, just maybe… That’s the dreamer side of me.
---
### Author:  [@Tab](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Tab)
#### Post date: [June 6, 2013, 9:59pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438/15 "2013-06-06T21:59:32Z")
Just as a laugh - what’s the end point…? Drones fighting drones…?
---
### Author:  [@tentative](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/tentative)
#### Post date: [June 6, 2013, 10:38pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438/16 "2013-06-06T22:38:52Z")
> [@Tab](#):
>
> Just as a laugh - what’s the end point…? Drones fighting drones…?
Why not? We have manned fighters that can shoot down enemy aircraft over line-of-sight (25 mi. +) All we have to do is use an AWAC or satellite tracking system (now used by Patriot anti-missle defense system) and feed that into the controller system. I’d be willing to bet that these drones are already being developed for “patrol” work off the boundaries of say… North Korea and Iran. The beauty of this piece of the technology is that we can have real-time missle defense in the air 24/7 and right at the “enemy” borders. We already have air-to-ground capabilities. The leap to air-to-air is no biggie.
The fun part is when we have to apologize for a shoot down of a commercial satellite launch vehicle. You forgot to tell us you were launching a satellite? Oops. Sorry about that. I’m sure that deployment of such capabilities has already happened or will happen soon. The U.N. will have some interesting discussions in about a year.
---
### Author:  [@anon](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon)
#### Post date: [June 6, 2013, 11:07pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438/17 "2013-06-06T23:07:58Z")
Drones are sooo 1984.
---
### Author:  [@Hobbes\_Choice](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Hobbes_Choice)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2013, 3:35pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438/18 "2013-06-07T15:35:59Z")
> [@uglypeoplefucking](#):
>
> > [@Hobbes Choice](#):
> >
> > > [@uglypeoplefucking](#):
> > >
> > > i agree with Tent - What this or that moral system has to say regarding the use of drones is really beside the point. You’re talking about warfare - and the moral rules are always distorted in times of war. People will get killed one way or another. However, we can set practical goals for war, including killing as few people as possible, and then targeted assassinations performed by robots actually become good things, because fewer people have to die. In a twisted way, using drones actually saves lives, and, morally speaking, saving lives is usually considered a good thing. So in considering wether to use drones we can adhere to strict moral guidelines regarding what is or isn’t an acceptable way to kill someone, or we can go with trying our best to minimize the number of people who die. The latter seems more sensible to me.
> >
> > Maybe it has not yet occurred to you that the main recipient of drones is country with whom the USA is NOT at war.
>
> That’s true, but the US has declared war on various non-state actors, many of whom happen to be located/hiding in said country, so the drone strikes are still acts of war, even if they take place within the borders of an (ostensible) US ally.
“Various non-state actors?”
What the hell do you mean by that?
The last guy I heard was targetted by a drone, was an American citizen. in a foreign land. The drone took hom out and a collection of innocent persons too.
Aside from an act of (undeclared) war in a foreign state, In my book that is called summary execution without trial! Is that the acceptable modus operandi of the US state now?
Not only has it taken the privilege of transgressing the sovereignty of other states but it seem to think execution without trial is also perfectly acceptable. What happened to the rule of law that protects us all?
---
### Author:  [@tentative](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/tentative)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2013, 3:52pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438/19 "2013-06-07T15:52:18Z")
Uhhh… the last known drone strike was in Pakistan and the target wasn’t an american. He was the second-in-command of the Taliban in Pakistan. No mention of any “collateral” killings.
Rule of law is a vague term. It doesn’t mean a trial by a jury of peers. It can be the decision of a single person interpreting what is “law”. Star chambers can enforce “rule of law”.
Demanding transparency in a cat and mouse game belies the nature of the game itself. It doesn’t provide comfort to those targeted, but to the extent that indescriminate violence toward others is considered acceptable by the extreme fringes of any society, one must choose the lesser of evils. Drones were originally developed for recon and surveilance Arming them was a reactive development. For some reason, the targets seemed unwilling to expose themselves to the rule of law…
---
### Author:  [@Hobbes\_Choice](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Hobbes_Choice)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2013, 4:36pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438/20 "2013-06-07T16:36:29Z")
> [@tentative](#):
>
> Uhhh… the last known drone strike was in Pakistan and the target wasn’t an american. He was the second-in-command of the Taliban in Pakistan. No mention of any “collateral” killings.
>
> I said the last one I heard of, who was American.
> I image you are now going to ignore the facts.
>
> Rule of law is a vague term. It doesn’t mean a trial by a jury of peers. It can be the decision of a single person interpreting what is “law”. Star chambers can enforce “rule of law”.
>
> Dah - as I thought, You are attacking the most sacred phrase developed by Western Civilisation as if it were nothing.
> And in a trice have ignored the facts and opened the door to tyranny.
> Congratulations.
>
> Demanding transparency in a cat and mouse game belies the nature of the game itself. It doesn’t provide comfort to those targeted, but to the extent that indescriminate violence toward others is considered acceptable by the extreme fringes of any society, one must choose the lesser of evils. Drones were originally developed for recon and surveilance Arming them was a reactive development. For some reason, the targets seemed unwilling to expose themselves to the rule of law…
And then they come knocking at your door.
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-drones-an-ethical-choice/36438.md?page=2)