It's disconcerting, to say the least, to hear media talking heads discussing the finer points of whether "assassination" by remote control drones is morally ok. For one thing, it hardly qualifies as anything other than taking out the enemy by whatever means work best. Al Qaeda declared war. It's an "unconventional" war, but who follow the rules for a conventional war? As long as they haven't surrendered, you have to annhiliate them. So far as I know, no one is talking surrender, bellying up to a table and signing papers.
If changing technology (remote control drones) do the job, and you save your own, then it's just smarter warfare. Catapults were superceded by cannons one day a long time ago. I wonder if anyone dwelt on moral aspects of that transition.
I'm not a war person, but humanity will continue to try to solve problems ( and make massive mischief for personal gain) by this means until The Great Awakening. That might be when all the independent parties around the world that do good decide to band together in a force powerful enough to overcome the Titans. Maybe that's in our future.
No comments:
Post a Comment