Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Dec 10th 2012 new

(Quote) Marianne-100218 said: John, terrorism is not conventional warfare. We do not need soldiers, and boots on the...
(Quote) Marianne-100218 said:



John, terrorism is not conventional warfare. We do not need soldiers, and boots on the ground, and helicopters or
naval ships to find men who want to kill Americans. They are hidden among the locals.

There are plenty of Americans working with others trying to scope out the most lethal leaders. They are in plenty
of danger.

So, my point is, that there is a place for drones with the new type of enemy.

No one seems to address this.

Don't quit follow your point about people becoming interested in Saddam after they see TV covereage of US invasion.
I thought the invasion was supposed to be about 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' that might be in Iraq, not the fate of
the Iraq people.

Don't even get me started on this barbaric enemy we have encountered with the beheadings and women having
rocks thrown at their heads. Drones are the best thing. Lets keep away from those lunatics.

--hide--

The point about Saddam is that "out of sight, out of mind" is alive and well in society.

I agree that drones have their place. I disagree about not needing boots on the ground- drones have their limitations. But the drones can certainly lessen the requirement.

Dec 10th 2012 new

(Quote) Peter-449116 said: You're right John, the weapons themselves are not unethical. The detachment of the dude sitti...
(Quote) Peter-449116 said:

You're right John, the weapons themselves are not unethical. The detachment of the dude sitting at his computer controlling a drone on the other side of the world just makes killing less personal, and therefore easier. No guts required. I am in no way opposed to the necessary use of force, but this technology makes abuse of that force easier, with little or no oversight. The question also arises- why the redundancy? Why does the CIA and the military both conduct drone strikes? The CIA needs to stick to intelligence, using drones strictly for reconnaissance and leave bombing to the Pentagon.

--hide--

Intelligence work includes "wet" operations. So the CIA's job is not just collecting intelligence.

Drones are no more or no less subject to abuse than any other form. And there is a lot of oversight within both the military and the CIA.

Dec 10th 2012 new

Now that we've opened up a rather sticky subject, I'll throw in three points more.

1. I'll agree that drones, like any tool, are morally neutral in and of themselves. It is how one uses them that gives them their moral character. But I think what was being asked was whether using drones to assissinate people was moral. No it is not.

2. It makes a difference whether drones are being used in a war to attack the enemy or whether they are being used to procure death in other than a licit war. So for example, if we are attacked and Congress declares war against the attackers, then using a drone to kill a target that one would be morally correct in killing by some other means would probably also be moral. However, using drones to kill people as a preventive to some putative future event would probably be wrong. Preventive war is not moral by Catholic standards, although President Bush chose to ignore the Holy Father's pleas in this regard.

3. The very disturbing thing about drones, and any other weapon where the killer is safe from all harm when she pressing the button to kill, is that it insulates us as human beings from the reality of the killing. It is a very different thing to press a button in an air conditioned building in Virginia from looking into a man's eyes while you run a bayonet through his rib cage. The latter has a way of slowing down the killing, whereas the former is so antiseptic that one could envision the killing going on forever. Such abstract killing worries me greatly, and I think there is an additional moral harm in participating in it.

Dec 11th 2012 new

(Quote) Gerald-283546 said: Now that we've opened up a rather sticky subject, I'll throw in three points more.
(Quote) Gerald-283546 said:

Now that we've opened up a rather sticky subject, I'll throw in three points more.

1. I'll agree that drones, like any tool, are morally neutral in and of themselves. It is how one uses them that gives them their moral character. But I think what was being asked was whether using drones to assissinate people was moral. No it is not.

2. It makes a difference whether drones are being used in a war to attack the enemy or whether they are being used to procure death in other than a licit war. So for example, if we are attacked and Congress declares war against the attackers, then using a drone to kill a target that one would be morally correct in killing by some other means would probably also be moral. However, using drones to kill people as a preventive to some putative future event would probably be wrong. Preventive war is not moral by Catholic standards, although President Bush chose to ignore the Holy Father's pleas in this regard.

3. The very disturbing thing about drones, and any other weapon where the killer is safe from all harm when she pressing the button to kill, is that it insulates us as human beings from the reality of the killing. It is a very different thing to press a button in an air conditioned building in Virginia from looking into a man's eyes while you run a bayonet through his rib cage. The latter has a way of slowing down the killing, whereas the former is so antiseptic that one could envision the killing going on forever. Such abstract killing worries me greatly, and I think there is an additional moral harm in participating in it.

--hide--


I don't think using drones to assassinate a terrorist is unethical. It is really our obligation to eliminate terrorists to
protect ourselves.

Why should a soldier have to look into a man's eyes before he eliminated him, if that man had already killed and
disfigured Americans before? To not have any more casualties because of this terrorist, would be the best outcome.
And if a drone could accomplish this, then why not?

Dec 11th 2012 new

(Quote) Marianne-100218 said: I don't think using drones to assassinate a terrorist is unethical. It is really o...
(Quote) Marianne-100218 said:



I don't think using drones to assassinate a terrorist is unethical. It is really our obligation to eliminate terrorists to
protect ourselves.

Why should a soldier have to look into a man's eyes before he eliminated him, if that man had already killed and
disfigured Americans before? To not have any more casualties because of this terrorist, would be the best outcome.
And if a drone could accomplish this, then why not?

--hide--

Using it to help protect our soldiers by offering ground support in a war is a proper use of the weapon.

It's the abusive use of the drones that we object to, such as the murder of American citizens, even children. Why should we have a kill list like Obama is keeping?

Dec 11th 2012 new

What did the President do watch the navy seals for seven hours . He did nothing . To me there a waste a money now

Dec 11th 2012 new

(Quote) Gerald-283546 said: Now that we've opened up a rather sticky subject, I'll throw in three points more.
(Quote) Gerald-283546 said:

Now that we've opened up a rather sticky subject, I'll throw in three points more.

1. I'll agree that drones, like any tool, are morally neutral in and of themselves. It is how one uses them that gives them their moral character. But I think what was being asked was whether using drones to assissinate people was moral. No it is not.

2. It makes a difference whether drones are being used in a war to attack the enemy or whether they are being used to procure death in other than a licit war. So for example, if we are attacked and Congress declares war against the attackers, then using a drone to kill a target that one would be morally correct in killing by some other means would probably also be moral. However, using drones to kill people as a preventive to some putative future event would probably be wrong. Preventive war is not moral by Catholic standards, although President Bush chose to ignore the Holy Father's pleas in this regard.

3. The very disturbing thing about drones, and any other weapon where the killer is safe from all harm when she pressing the button to kill, is that it insulates us as human beings from the reality of the killing. It is a very different thing to press a button in an air conditioned building in Virginia from looking into a man's eyes while you run a bayonet through his rib cage. The latter has a way of slowing down the killing, whereas the former is so antiseptic that one could envision the killing going on forever. Such abstract killing worries me greatly, and I think there is an additional moral harm in participating in it.

--hide--

I didn't take the original question to be one about assassination, but that is not terribly important.

Would you hold the attack that killed Admiral Yamamoto during WWII to be an immoral assassination, or a legitimate attack? If the later, how is that any different than what is going on now?

Preventative war is not even mentioned in Catholic just war theory, let alone prohibited. Granted, the criteria for a just war makes a pre-emptive strike much more difficult to do ethically, but that does not mean it is impossible.

I think a lot of people are looking at drones as if they were radically different than what they are. The notion of "detachment" is exaggerated. At least the guy sitting in front of the screen controlling a drone sees what he's shooting at. For over a century now the crews operating all but the lightest of guns don't even see their targets. They just dial in some numbers and send rounds downrange. Likewise I don't know how people think that drones are so devastating in their fire power. Their payload is not very big. Compared to a B-52 bomber they are almost laughable. A late 19th century artillery battery could have sent far more destructive power down range than a drone, without the gunners ever seeing their targets.

Dec 11th 2012 new

(Quote) Steven-706921 said: Using it to help protect our soldiers by offering ground support in a war is a proper u...
(Quote) Steven-706921 said:

Using it to help protect our soldiers by offering ground support in a war is a proper use of the weapon.

It's the abusive use of the drones that we object to, such as the murder of American citizens, even children. Why should we have a kill list like Obama is keeping?

--hide--

It is abusive to use any weapon to murder anybody, regardless of citizenship or age. Shooting a legitimate military target is a legitimate act of war.

Would you have objected if Churchill and Roosevelt had a "kill list" that included Hitler, Goring, and Himmler?

Dec 11th 2012 new
(Quote) John-336509 said: I didn't take the original question to be one about assassination, but that is not terribly ...
(Quote) John-336509 said:



I didn't take the original question to be one about assassination, but that is not terribly important.



Would you hold the attack that killed Admiral Yamamoto during WWII to be an immoral assassination, or a legitimate attack? If the later, how is that any different than what is going on now?



Preventative war is not even mentioned in Catholic just war theory, let alone prohibited. Granted, the criteria for a just war makes a pre-emptive strike much more difficult to do ethically, but that does not mean it is impossible.



I think a lot of people are looking at drones as if they were radically different than what they are. The notion of "detachment" is exaggerated. At least the guy sitting in front of the screen controlling a drone sees what he's shooting at. For over a century now the crews operating all but the lightest of guns don't even see their targets. They just dial in some numbers and send rounds downrange. Likewise I don't know how people think that drones are so devastating in their fire power. Their payload is not very big. Compared to a B-52 bomber they are almost laughable. A late 19th century artillery battery could have sent far more destructive power down range than a drone, without the gunners ever seeing their targets.

--hide--


Per the CCC, the Just War doctrine lays out the "strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force", which would rule out pre-emptive strikes. . .unless one is going to make the case that walking over to a neighbor's house and shooting him in the head because you felt threatened by him was "defense".
Dec 11th 2012 new

(Quote) Charles-512043 said: Per the CCC, the Just War doctrine lays out the "strict conditions for legitimate
(Quote) Charles-512043 said:

Per the CCC, the Just War doctrine lays out the "strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force", which would rule out pre-emptive strikes. . .unless one is going to make the case that walking over to a neighbor's house and shooting him in the head because you felt threatened by him was "defense".
--hide--

rolling eyes

So I guess the Allies in WWII must have been morally wrong. After all, they went on the offense against the poor, nice, friendly Germans and Japonese.

Context, Charles, context.

Posts 11 - 20 of 98