Discuss the ethical implications for soldiers who operate unmanned Essay

Discuss the ethical implications for soldiers who operate unmanned weapons systems - Essay Example Its human nature to fight, and there are no two opinions about the fact that as long as this human race is on the earth, wars will be fought. But perhaps the way wars are fought have changed from time to time. People generally do not agree with the fact that robots should be given that much space in the warfare as they do lack human emotions. When it comes to the debate concerning unmanned systems and who operates them, the British secretary of state has given a very appropriate description by saying that, â€Å"We risk continuing to fight a twenty first century conflict with twentieth century rules.† (Singer, 382), the reason for him to say this is that now wars do not have any place for emotions, mostly they are fought on the basis of ‘kill or be killed’(Atkin, 81). There are great number of rules which are set before a war is commenced, these rules are formed using holy books to conventions and treaties among countries. Mostly these rules try to specify distinc tion between murders and self-defense actions. The ICRC is the only organization which has a voice when it comes to wars and its weapons and what are the humane ways to apply these weapons in wars. There are four basic rules which are applied on weapons used in wars, which are as follows: First nations have to choose the methods and means to fight which is rather very limited (Singer 384). If this rule is not applied by the nations serious consequences would be implied to the whole world. As when in WWII Japan experienced nuclear bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki it was clear that such lethal weapons needed to be banned (Bidwai, and Vanaik, 142). Secondly weapons which cannot discriminate between civilians and warriors are strictly prohibited (Singer, 384). This is the most serious problem which is affecting the morality code when it comes to using any kind of weapons not just unmanned ones. Weapons causing unnecessary suffering are not allowed either (Singer, 384). Again a war is not meant to hurt commoners, and it is also not meant to put any one in a position where the suffering gets unbearable, as everyone knows that in Hiroshima and Nagasaki physically disabled children were born for years due to the after effects of nuclear radiations (Sahu, 189). Lastly any weapons that the international community decides are objectionable for any reason are forbidden (Singer, 384). A great number of weapons have been disallowed to be used in wars, especially weapons of mass destruction (Langford, 4). Unmanned weapons in the warfare have been introduced to save man force from major suffering when battle field is rather intense, but sometimes it looks like these weapons are serving the reverse purpose, by committing innocent lives’ massacre. The second rule of not letting weapons in to the war which cannot differentiate between commoners and enemy soldiers usually prohibits weapons of mass destruction but still these rules could not be properly implemented when w ars are fought. Even today drones are being used to find terrorists, and in the midst innocent people are being killed (Sheehan, 113). So the unsolved query is whether the ethical implication are getting applied in their true spirit, in today’s era when every country is trying to prove its mettle by letting others know what they have in terms of