The Instigator
MolecularBird06
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
mochame
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Drones Should Be Allowed in Warfare

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 520 times Debate No: 49431
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

MolecularBird06

Pro

First Round is Acceptance
mochame

Con

I posit that there are 3 primary reasons that drones (hereby defined as any remotely controlled machine where a human isn't present) should not be allowed in warfare.

1. If takes the role of responsibility out of the equation. Governments and corporations or even terrorist groups can send these drones by land, air, and sea to carry out destructive missions that can be sent around the world anonymously. These machines often make mistakes and accidents can be attributed to glitches or misguidance (pilot error).

2. It serves as warfare without justice. Often missions are and can be carried out against foreign enemies and combatants without proof that the target is foe or innocent. It allows targets to be attacked without assurance that they have done the atrocities that they are being attacked for.

3. Machines that controlled wireless can be hacked. Machines, no matter how secure, can be hacked and taken advantage of. There is no validation for flying vehicles, sending vehicles across sea, or rolling them over land that could possibly be hijacked by other governments, corporations, or terrorist groups and be sent instead to attack friendly targets.
Debate Round No. 1
MolecularBird06

Pro

"1. If takes the role of responsibility out of the equation. Governments and corporations or even terrorist groups can send these drones by land, air, and sea to carry out destructive missions that can be sent around the world anonymously. These machines often make mistakes and accidents can be attributed to glitches or misguidance (pilot error)."

My opponent seems to think that drones will all look the same. Certain drones will be used by certain nations making them distinctive. Also most drones have an insignia painted on them like aircraft and tanks. This would allow people to trace drones were they could come from. Also most drones have human pilots, which greatly reduces the likelihood of an error. Also there will always be errors, whether it is a human or drone. A pilot can easily mistake a civilian from a combatant when they are cruising at hundreds of miles per hour. My opponent thinks it will be easier for terrorist to attack our homes with drones, but this isn't true. Where are terrorists going toe get drones to attacks as with? Where are they going to get the training to use the drones? Where are they going to get the hackers to hack into the mainframe of the drones?

"It serves as warfare without justice. Often missions are and can be carried out against foreign enemies and combatants without proof that the target is foe or innocent. It allows targets to be attacked without assurance that they have done the atrocities that they are being attacked for."

My opponent seems to think that drones will actually matter in this case. If a country attacks another one it can attack with human or drone troops, it doesn't make a difference. Soldiers follow their orders, this can be seen with Russian soldiers in Ukrainian soil. Also according to international law, to attack another country you must have a legitimate reason, so the U.S can't just attack Britain with drones.

"Machines that controlled wireless can be hacked. Machines, no matter how secure, can be hacked and taken advantage of. There is no validation for flying vehicles, sending vehicles across sea, or rolling them over land that could possibly be hijacked by other governments, corporations, or terrorist groups and be sent instead to attack friendly targets."

My opponent is assuming it would be easy to hack into a military grade mainframe. The military isn't dumb, they know that a hacker would try to hack into their drones, they would obviously encrypt their network so doing this would not be easy. My opponent is describing a highly unlikely scenario which is likely to not happen. Also a person can turn a human to their cause, the process is called bribery. Losing a solider would mean that your information, tactics, and training is in enemy hands, while with a drone, all they have is a drone.

Drone warfare could be beneficial, as drones do not feel human rage. In WW2 many German P.O.Ws disappeared after being taken prisoner, they were most likely executed. A drone wouldn't feel the rage that the soldiers felt. Even if it was controlled by human pilots, the pilot wouldn't feel the rage and pain of losing a comrade, which drove the soldiers to execute the prisoners.

Also drone warfare would reduce the loss of human life, if the military fought with drones instead of men many more people would be alive. What if the Civil War could have be fought with drones? We would have saved 800,000 lives in that war.

Drone strikes are also effective, a drone strike took out al-Qaida"s No. 2 leader at a house in northern Pakistan, was by any measure a step forward in the war on terrorism.

Sources:
The book No Less Than Victory
http://www.thedailybeast.com...
http://blogs.kansas.com...
http://www.msnbc.com...
mochame

Con

My opponent is under the impression that countries clearly label their combat drones with insignias and colors. This couldn't be furthermost from the truth. Countries are clearly incentive to make their drones as stealth as possible instead of capture, whether by counter-attack or defect. Such as the drone that was captured by Iran recently, nothing was linking that drone back to the USA.

As for whether countries are willing to send soldiers or drones into combat is one of the main reasons we have debates like these. Large countries like the US are more willing to engage in daring missions in countries when the human factor isn't a condition. With the constant media attention, especially over foreign policy recently, sending our troops in to live combat would be both morally tragic and political suicide. As for my opponent's mention of Russia sending troops into Ukraine, Russia did that knowing that the world's nations could do nothing about it. The US has never sent troops into a country for combat where nuclear weapons are a threat. The same with Russia, had Ukraine had nuclear weapons then I believe that Russia would not have invaded. The same reason that we don't invade countries like North Korea, they pose an insurmountable threat such as a nuclear attack.

My opponent seems to think that military grade encryption is some impenetrable force beyond hacking. It's in the news quite often that China hacks into our secure military systems and corporations and we do the the same to many nations around the world (the recent NSA hacks, globally). I'm sure every nation that the NSA spied on had "military grade encryption". For every software firewall and security fix, there are many dozens of hackers and entities that don't play fair, and they are able invade our secure systems. There are entire facilities discovered in china that are aimed at Chinese hackers that attempt to gain access into other countries military and secure systems.

Reducing human casualty, also increases attacks by countries that have the capability to send in drones. We become cavalier with who deserves attacks around the world. If we want to police other nations, then we should have the human factor involved in the decision making and on the battlefield.

Sources
http://www.cnn.com...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
http://www.technologyreview.com...
http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
MolecularBird06

Pro

MolecularBird06 forfeited this round.
mochame

Con

mochame forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MolecularBird06

Pro

MolecularBird06 forfeited this round.
mochame

Con

mochame forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
MolecularBird06

Pro

MolecularBird06 forfeited this round.
mochame

Con

mochame forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.