Amazon.com Widgets
  • It's better without death.

    Yes, wars should be fought without human life, because that way there is as little loss of life as possible. If we can send over a drone to drop a bomb, or we can send a person in a plane, we should send the plane. The pilot and their family would prefer us to send the drone.

  • If they have to be fought

    If wars have to be fought then they should most definitely be fought without human life being involved. Using the world Olympics as a way to fight wars would be a great idea. Then it would be country against country in a battle, but a battle that wouldn't cause men and women to lose their lives.

  • War Takes Lives

    It is a dangerous thing to remove accountability from one's actions. By using drones, computers, or any other non-human participants in the act of war, war would tend to become more of a game than an atrocity. War needs to be dreaded, feared, and avoided. Removing the human conscience from the equation would make it to easy to destroy human life without a second thought.

  • Humanity is Essential to Warfare

    While sometimes it is the destruction of things like military targets or property that motivate warfare, human lives should always be part of war, because they are necessary for its prevention. Inhuman actions become even moreso, the further humans are removed from them (for example, drone strikes, or, for a parable about this issue, the "Star Trek" episode where wars are waged by computer).


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.