We’re about to have a new source of friction with the Muslim world. Sometimes a new weapon comes along that has wonderful military capabilities but offers the potential for huge collateral damage. The nuclear bomb is the big example, but you can also think of the way that the Predator drone has been a wonderful weapon for the US, but has made people hate us when the operators accidentally take out groups of civilians instead of enemies.
The XM25 grenade thrower is a real game changer in favor of the professional military over guerilla insurgents. In general we all know that soldiers or guerillas hide behind corners or walls to avoid being shot by the enemy. The XM25 can hit things around corners: it measures the distance to a target by laser, then the soldier aims his shot a little bit high / wide. The round, more of a grenade than a bullet, goes that exact distance and then explodes exactly above or beside the target, thus negating the target’s cover.
Militarily, it sounds like a big help for our soldiers (at least until everyone else has one too). But it means that soldiers are going to be shooting at people that they cannot actually see. If collateral damage causes us to be even less popular abroad, well, we gain some soldier’s lives saved on the battlefield.
How would you balance the lives of US soldiers versus the lives of foreign civilians?
Poll
3
votes
Show Results
How should we balance the lives of US soldiers versus the lives of foreign civilians?
3
votes
Vote Now!
How should we balance the lives of US soldiers versus the lives of foreign civilians?
Any collateral damage / civilian deaths are acceptable to protect even a single US soldier
US soldiers have volunteered for the danger, they should be asked to sacrifice their lives to protect civilians, even foreigners
A life is a life, regardless of legal status, and I'm writing a comment to explain how to apply that!
The context of the war determines what is the right balance. Who started the war?
Utilitarian ethics, type I: which life is more economically valuable?
Utilitarian ethics, type II: which life serves US interests more?
Inalienable moral rights: killing and war are never justified, not even in self-defense.
Viture ethics: the relative virtue of the soldier and civilian is weighed, and the US soldier always wins.
Who needs ethics? As long as I'm not on the receiving end of a gun that shoots around corners, anything goes.
Comments are closed on this story.