Ethics of unmanned warfare?

I'm in the AF and I develop aircraft/weapons.. I am very much against weaponization of UAVs because of the ethics problem. While it keeps men and women out of harms way, which should be a good thing, it causes our civlian leaders to be more prone to going to war because they won't have the political ramifications of losing a pilot (or soldier when we get there)..

its actually a scary thought...

also, the man in the loop is the only way i would trust a weapon with the destructive power of a bomber especially...otherwise you are subject to being overtaken by a hacker through the network used to control the UAV

A cruise missile is a "UAV". An air-air missile is a "UAV".

An ATGM is a "UGV". Arming them is I think a moot point: we've been doing it, will do it and will continue to do it.

All warfare is a political decision. Clausewitz realized this almost 200 years ago. There is validity in the comment that a "clean war" will have attraction to political leaders. That's why the voting public should insist their political leadership have training in strategic thought if not outright military experience.

Someone close to me flew uav while in the army. He was often attached to an infantry unit and in danger as much as many other people... he was in combat and earned his metal. I personally think that using weapons on them just cuts out a step to be taken and someone else that may screw up. I dont think it would lead to more or less wars. It is governments, media, and others that are making a need for war. We need conflict for the world to balance according to basic sociology principles, so maybe thats it.... in war we need to stop trying to do what looks good and just do what needs to be done, let the media make a spin on ethics... soldiers are just a number to them anyway. One of the most important ppl in my life is a soldier and if it helps protect him at all then im for it.

I'm really big on ethics of warfare. We should all line up at 25 paces wearing Red Coats, in multiple ranks and no fair ducking. Jeez, you're talking about killing the enemy. There are no rules, only winners and losers.

When you think about it, didn't the Pope condemn the crossbow and attempt to outlaw it in warfare. The same has been tried with the Sniper for several hundred years.

I think when unmanned weapons become more widespread and deadly, people will start taking the battle to their operators.

Much in the same way artillery pieces quickly became the target of attacks, especially so when weapons-locating radars were invented.

Well using machines to kill people is just as ethical as using people to kill people so its really just a matter of do we want to see a military who's strongest defense rests on the abilities of someoone playing the equivalent of a video game

Sitting in a dark basement playing on a computer?

Kind of takes the fun out of it.

Plus you don't get much to brag about since you're never in any real danger.

Who would sign up for that? (I mean besides some Warhammer nerd?)

It doesn't bother me a bit. Remember that the objective of warfare is to compel the enemy to accede to your wishes, and anything that will do the job without unnecessarily injuring innocent bystanders is okay.

I have no problem with them. It's the nature of the modern battlefield.