How would less lives lost be unmoral? War is not, but sometimes it cannot be helped. Several times countries have been in a kill or be killed situation, at times like these when war is unavoidable it is ones duty to find a way to win while losing less lives.
Drone warfare is another tool of war. It is no more damaging then computer guided warheads. The advantages of sending in non-human drones does save lives as well as provides a bit more task oriented strikes. A drone is simply another weapon used as you would use any other weapon in the theater of war.
I don't one way of killing is any more moral than another way of killing people. With Drone warfare, we can remote control a machine to commit war, which in the long run would save lives. If we create drone warfare with our enemies, maybe they would think twice before attacking us. Countries like Afghanistan, they do not have the education or technology to combat us with drone warfare!
The debate of if war is moral is a big one, and one that we will not solve here. I personally think that drone warfare is more moral than killing someone face-to-face...at least this way some troops are out of harms way. Maybe eventually we'll just end up fighting drone to drone, and we won't have to worry about human casualties at all!
There will always be loss of life in times of war. Damage will always be done, people always killed. Drones are a way to simply lower this number. Has drone warfare killed civilians or damaged property? Yes. Have planes flown by man done this as well? Yes.
Instead of having two armies of total say 2 million men go into a campaign. Then imagine only a few hundred thousand coming back out of it. Put say 100,000 thousand civilians in the battleground. Will some civilians die or get injured in that war zone? Yes, because for a human life there is no second chance, a person must make a decision. A drone or robot however, does not. We can always make more.
Do you think if we had drones in 1939 we could of saved millions of lives ? Yes I think so , but unlike now we did not have the technology and we had to commit ground forces , 60 millions people died in the second world war and we could have saved a lot more lives by selective targeting of people like Hitler !History taught us that if we take no action , then eventually this will come back to bite you big time !
When playing a video game, you become detached from reality. It is, in all actuality nothing more than a game. With drone warfare, operators are sitting behind a screen with a joystick, controlling a deadly, unmanned aircraft; much like a simulation from a video game. When a soldier is on the battlefield, they don't shoot at everyone in their path, they take into consideration the fact that even though they are in enemy territory, there are innocent civilians and children that are stuck in the area. Drones are not 100% accurate. Many people overlook the cases that involve drone usage that have taken out school buildings, households, neighborhoods, and other civilian-filled places. The topic up for debate is the morality of drone usage. Morally, it's wrong. The fact that it keeps our soldiers off the front line is undeniable, it's great for our country to save their lives. But the fact still remains that it is immoral. The term moral is defined as being concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. If you tell yourself that it's alright to kill children and innocent bystanders just because it might protect one of our soldiers, think about such roles in reverse. Anyone could sit behind a computer and joystick and blow something up. Our military is proclaimed to be brave and fearless. If that's true, why put innocent people in harms way? It's immoral and if you disagree, you're lying to yourself.
Drone warfare, where the drone robotic computer is used as weaponry by a programming agent in a far away place, is essentially "video game warfare." With about the same amount of moral and consequential awareness as Mortal Kombat or Grand Theft Auto III or Soldier of Fortune, a military operator of about 18 to 25 years of age can "play war" by video screen and move up in the ranks with successful hits until he or she is a General with enough fame to become elected President! Maybe skill with a mouse and keyboard should not be the only prerequisite to spree killing and instant stardom. What a near-child can achieve behind a computer screen, without the shred of reality that a least a little blood spatter can provide, should not be made readily available - maybe not even to morally-capable, late-age adults. Screens disconnect us all from the reality of what we can achieve at a distance, without the consequences of instant retaliation or remorse.
Is the killing of civilians and kids moral...? I don't think so, but who knows. I guess Sandy Hook was a big deal, yet hundreds of children have died from U.S. drone attacks, just look it up. The facts are there and yet if American children are killed it's a big deal. When is one type of blood more sacred than another? We all have a right to this earth, yet we sanction drone attacks that kill more kids than actual targets. Makes no sense to me but I'll let you decide.