The Moral Dilemma - The weapons vs. the conscience of humankind!
by Borislav Zdralic
Technology – the necessity of human progress for centuries played the central role in any war leading from technological impotence to technological industrial domination. For centuries, science, physics and other sciences have contributed extensively to the previously an emerging security goal that "for every desired battlefield outcome there should be a precise and well-defined action." From simple weapons used previously in different wars to the age of the accelerating cascade of scientific and technological advances such as turbojet engines, radar, nuclear weapons, missiles, revolutionized the effectiveness of military forces. But, over the past two decades, we have seen a new revolution in the precision of military capabilities, once again underwritten by science and technology: precision weapons, precision navigation, precision surveillance, and precision command and control.
 |
| Ultimate Dream - IBCC - Integrated Battlefield Command Centre |
However, that development was always formulated on the basis of delivery, or platform that in its core simply has to deliver the lethal material to the target only with one purpose to inflict the highest possible outcome - the destruction. No matter which of the two components we discuss conventional or weapons of mass destruction, the idea was always embodied into the concept of platforms that ultimately poses those capabilities. For both categories precision played a key role in the reality of military force application. Achieving a desired precise outcome required precision across a spectrum of activities ranging from geopolitical judgments to weapons accuracy. Much of what one needs for improving geopolitical judgment is, of course, beyond the pure view of science.
But even there, the products of science and technology make important contributions. Nonetheless, we focus here primarily on the contributions of science and technology to achieving the desired result against military targets but in the light of idea that some weapons, no matter what their military uses, are abhorrent to conscience of humankind and should be banned.
But even there, the products of science and technology make important contributions. Nonetheless, we focus here primarily on the contributions of science and technology to achieving the desired result against military targets but in the light of idea that some weapons, no matter what their military uses, are abhorrent to conscience of humankind and should be banned.
Banned we claim, in light of the fact that any weapon, able to inflict any level of causalities or destruction is in reality for some, something that is abhorrent to conscience, same as in light of fact that even though we must accept the war as realm of our world not just because of historical, cultural, economical or political nature of human kind but also because of our inner nature and psychological structure, that is related to war in sense of natural connection with violence. In reality that moral dilemma dividedness between the application of military force and use of science that in reality served to promote important human values, but often at the price of increasingly more destructive weapons that produced not only more combat casualties but also more collateral death and destruction outside battlefields and military targets. For example, according to Kennedy D. M., (1999:874) in “Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War” during the last five months of World War II American bombing raids claimed the lives of almost a million Japanese civilians--not counting Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On one night in March of that final war year, 234 B-29s dropped a thousand tons of incendiary bombs over downtown Tokyo, killing 84 000 people.
More than two decades later, claims Kutle S. I. (1996:103) in “Encyclopaedia of the Vietnam War” during the Vietnam conflict, the US dropped almost three times as much explosive tonnage as that was used in World War II, killing an estimated 365 000 Vietnamese civilians.
Then in Desert Storm we saw the implications of precision in selecting targets and directing force against them. Every incident of unintended destruction against non-combatants became an object of press, public, and political attention. For the first time, the pursuit of more effective military force was compatible with dramatic reduction of unintended death and destruction. This new capability also became a political imperative.
Meeting the demands of this political imperative has led to even more demanding standards of precision. In World War II, "daylight precision bombing" was the euphemism for armadas of heavy bombers delivering many hundreds of bombs, with large average errors, in the hope of inflicting significant damage on a military target.
After “Desert Storm” came Bosnia 1995, than Kosovo 1999, September 11, and finally Afghanistan campaign and Second Iraq War. Through all those conflicts, same as for the last 50 years we always talked and discussed the problems of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons in short weapons considered as the most destructive technological advances, developed by science.
After “Desert Storm” came Bosnia 1995, than Kosovo 1999, September 11, and finally Afghanistan campaign and Second Iraq War. Through all those conflicts, same as for the last 50 years we always talked and discussed the problems of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons in short weapons considered as the most destructive technological advances, developed by science.
Immanuel Kant (1788) translated by Abbot T.K., (1879) in “Critique of Practical Reason and other works on the theory of Ethics” once said that there are two things that fill our hearts, over and over again, with wonder and respect: the starry sky above and the moral law within us.
The idea of science being devoted to the welfare of humanity came to the public and it has remained an explosive topic, attracting particularly widespread attention, for example of new technologies that in its outcome even though are not considered lethal such for example weapons of mass destruction, still have a big window of opportunity that one day may inflict a new type of destruction to the human kind on the level that can be well beyond anything that we are able to imagine even in our worst nightmares. Gene technology, embryonic stem cell research and possible cloning of humans, precise energy weapons - lasers, nano-technology on both rational and emotional level is something that is related to the question of progress in technological, industrial and knowledge level of human nature. Satisfying this desire belongs to what we call the basic rights and is therefore among our highest values.
Some will agree that this is specific restriction to the knowledge possession, but the fact is that if we take into account experience of the 20th century, the possibility must simply be translated into the window of opportunity for military applications of any technology that have capabilities of the cheep, precise end effective use for military purpose. Usually this prerogative is masked under the idea of the moral demands made on scientists by themselves, scientific institutions and by general society. What we learned from the effects of 20th Century development of nuclear physics; what we are confronted with or through the breathtaking advances of molecular biology and biotechnology. At the same time, the members of the scientific community laying a blind-eye stress on the principle of freedom of research arguing that a balance between freedom of research and the responsibility of scientists exist and is applicable to a wide range of scientific discoveries and so called new technologies.
But according to Cris Hables Gray (1997:20) the usage of the technology is always beyond expectations. In book “Post-modern War the New Politics of Conflict” (1997:20) Chris Hables Gray, gives examples of different technologies that are in military sense a new applications of existing technologies. He strongly suggests that:
“The Bosnian conflict, in which satellites are used to find mass graves of the recent victims of thousand years old hatreds, isn’t the only confusing conflict. Consider these:
- PSYOPs (psychological operations) U.S troops battle voodoo imagery in Haiti.
- Russian troops attempt with little success to crush cell phone linked Moslem rebels in the Caucasus.
- Religious revolutionaries attack liberal regimes with assassination (Algeria, Egypt), bombs (United States, France), and gas (Japan even in alliance with their hated enemies, as the Orthodox Jewish and Hamas Moslem alliance in Israel against peace. On June 15, 1995, president Clinton orders the United States to prepare for bioterrorism (network TV reports, January 30, 1996).
- Zapatista insurrectionists shake Mexico using combination of traditional and cyber-guerrilla tactics and strategies.” (Cris Hables Gray, 1997:20)
What Gray did not mention is for example successful from the military point of view usage of cell-phone signals in the case of elimination of Chechen leader Johar Dudajev during 1995, when simple code signal was traced in the moment when leader of Chechen rebels used the satellite phone. The coordinated taken from GPS satellite were simply transferred to the closest Russian artillery position followed by simple one word command – “fire”. The rest belongs to the record of interactions between military applications and technology.
Moreover, even though this technology application for strictly military and political purpose is still something that can be considered as a separate case not connected with systematic military methodology used on a wide scale. Engagement of satellite just for purpose of destruction and elimination of just one target must be justified by significance of that target, which in this case, from Russian point of view was identified as primary target, hoping that rebel movement will be crushed after elimination of its leader. Off course perceptual mistake, because, rebellion movement continued its struggle, ad main objective was not accomplished. Hoverer, the application of technology proved its point in strictly military sense, because the target was eliminated. This point proves usage of technology that, in a case of new technologies can inflict destruction on unimaginable level.
For example, is it possible that one day we will face a real Terminator, or struggle with nano-technology problem, that according to E.R. Harrison (1981:472-473) Harrison E.R. on June 11, 1981 in article ‘Impact Fusion and the Field Emission Projectile’ published in, Nature, Vol. 291 stated that this can lead into the construction of new type of artillery ammunition that based on nano-technology will be able to fire a complex synthesis ammunition that will be able to hit target and deliver the cargo consisting an assembler and nano-computer system that in a later stage can use the light of the local sun and local carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen to replicate and to build complex military structures deep behind enemy lines or be programmed for total destruction of hostile forces or non-combatants. In book "Impact Fusion and the Field Emission Projectile," Harrison (1981:472-473) opened a new field in which, to paraphrase Harrison, instead of classical projectile, the nano-shell can be modified into the receiver for further instructions from home, including plans for complex devices such as rockets or replicating assemblers that ultimately can build virtually anything, including intelligent systems or high energy impulse laser weapons that could be completed in a matter of days or weeks following delivery of the cubic-micron "seed."
Even worse case scenario, we are able to discover in a case of genetic engineering, with possibility of creating a military force superior to human beings. The outcome of this scenario has, according to some authors such as Jeremy Rifkin (1980:176), ultimate moral perspective. In book “Entropy: A New World View” (1980:176) Rifkin pointed strongly that any modification based on game with gene card even in a case of viruses and bacteria is related to the wide range of consequences because of one simple reason that from Rifkin’s point of view all human achievements are fundamentally destructive. Faced with threat of terrorism, the possibility of underground research laboratories that are capable in simple conditions to modify gene imprint of simple bacteria, or virus, is more than our rationality can afford, not just because of threats that terrorism presents, but also because of all possibilities of combining nano-technology with bacteriological or biological scientific research. Scenario of super bacteria that strikes the world population on a large scale, without possibility of finding the effective cure is more than realistic in a reality of today’s life. Combining this with military application window of opportunity we are faced with the most disastrous scenario. Adding, the all range of possible modifications related to the field of genetic engineering, agriculture sector, general health, the possibilities for military applications on basis of abuse are more than obvious.
But, analysing examples of different technological solutions, it seems that they lead into sector of controlled technology, in accordance with precise plans and fields of development. For many authors that sort of directed scientific progress is expected. For example, if we paraphrase Mahatma Gandhi (1980:118-122), we will came to the conclusion that self, deficit-driven dominant leadership around the world today turning a deaf ear to insights from past and present, as well as thinkers of past and present.
Moreover, that leadership, it seems not just controls but also decides which technological solutions will have priority, that may ultimately lead into the specific form of hegemonic technological control which is driven, guided and controlled by those who possess the most developed capabilities for carrying out scientific researches, only in attempt to confirm its leading and in reality hegemonic positions. The best example of this idea we are able to find in the case of US military agendas of the new US military policy identified by current United States of America president George W. Bush (2000) stated in Press Release, “Improving Troop Morale” on May 31, 2000, where George W, Bush declared additional investments in research and development by at least $20 billion over the next five years, 20% [of which] must be spent for purchasing next generation weapons in attempt to preserve US military as a key to preserving world peace outside of America’s borders with emphasis on a strong military, a strong United States of America. Moreover as additional measure Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act was amended in October 2001 to restrict access to certain technologies. Foreign nationals affiliated with any of the seven countries (Cuba, Libya, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan or Syria.) that sponsor terrorism will not have access to the specified sensitive technologies. In addition, foreign nationals affiliated with countries subject to the Non-Proliferation Export Control regulations (China, India, Israel, Pakistan, and Russia) may not have access to these technologies. The current list of 16 technologies is very broad and refers to designs and uses related to weaponry prescribing at the same time that any research personnel will have to have background evaluations performed by an appropriate law enforcement agency, in a timely manner.
In addition, on June 12, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the "Public Health Security and Bio-terrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002." This law requires that Institutions with Select Agents must register with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) or the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-even if the agent is not transferred. This law dramatically cuts the numbers of people with access to pathogens and enables the government to screen potential users for suspected terrorist activity or association with terrorist groups prescribing that criterion for designation as restricted persons are again determined by a background evaluation performed by an appropriate law enforcement agency.
As a result, on one hand we are faced with strong moral dilemma in a case of new technologies applicable to the military applications, which in its core justifies concerns related to the use and consequences of use which on other hand can be identified as technological domination and technological and knowledge hegemony.
 |
Hybrid Technologies X-50A Dragonfly Helicopter-Jet fighter Hybrid Before test flight |
It is obvious that the moral dilemma remains, same as question of the technological and knowledge hegemony that still does not justifies potential lethal capacity of technology in military applications. Even though we must admit that still our main objectives and fears are related to the problem of standard weapons of mass destruction, it is more than obvious that lethal potential of perspective new technologies are even more dangerous in a case of military applications, leaving without any doubt clear answer to the main question, that some weapons, no matter what their military uses should be banned. Some technology if used as military applications can inflict enormous level of destruction to the human kind, but the main problem of restricting those technologies to enter field of military applications remains because of human nature that still search for ultimate weapons without any concerns for humanity and moral dilemmas.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
- Bush, W. George, 2001, Press Release ‘Improving Troop Morale’ May 31, 2000.
- Gandhi Mahatma, 1980, “Selected works“, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- Gray Cris Hables, 1997, “Postmodern War the New Politics of Conflict”, Routledge, London.
- Harrison E.R., June 11, 1981, ‘Impact Fusion and the Field Emission Projectile’, Nature, Vol. 291.
- Kant, Imanuel, 1788, Kritik der praktischen Vernunft. (transl. By Abbot T.K., 1879, cf. Critique of Practical Reason and other works on the theoryof Ethics, London).
- Kennedy D. M., 1999, Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- Kutle S. I. 1996, Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War, Scribner's, New York..
- Rifkin Jeremy, 1980, “Entropy: A New World View”, Viking, New York.
No comments:
Post a Comment