Talk surrounding drone strikes has increased significantly, and many valid points have been raised both in objection and in support to the use of these killing machines. Drones are unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) that are armed with weaponry and serve both for reconnaissance and for combat purposes. Arguments surrounding the use of these machines have revolved primarily around the moral and ethical dilemmas that their use entails.
A major concern deals with the large amounts of civilian casualties caused by drone strikes. According to a study by Stanford Law School and New York University’s School of Law, the level of targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is around 2 percent. For every terrorist killed there are approximately 50 civilians killed. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism one reason for the 98 percent civilian casualty rate is not a result of lack of training or terrible aim but rather a “double tap” strategy—reminiscent of terrorist organizations—which aims to target people who gather at drone attack sites to mourn the victims.
Arguments in favor of drones emphasize the utility of these machines in sparing American lives. Why risk sending a regiment of young men to risk their lives when you can send in an unmanned drone? From the perspective of the officials this isn’t even a question; there is no reason to ask someone to risk their lives if there is an alternative. But how many foreign lives are worth the American lives that are spared? The question I would like you to grapple with focuses on the sanctity of life.
The military has always been on the forefront of technological advances. If it weren’t for people always trying to find more innovative and efficient ways to kill and conquer each other, we would not have anywhere near the amount of technology that we do currently. What’s happened as a result of these innovations is that we have increasingly distanced ourselves from the act of killing, without decreasing the amount of killing. We are still using bullets and firearms, but instead of seeing, hearing, and feeling the individuals we are killing, we are merely seeing his or her figure through an iron site, a scope, or worse yet, a computer monitor.
In an interview with a sniper, the reporter asked if the soldier felt anything when he pulled the trigger. His chilling response was, “Yeah, the recoil.” This illustrates the effect of the progression of our military innovations. As we create weaponry that distances us from the people we are fighting, we are not just distancing our soldiers physically, but we are removing them emotionally and even spiritually from the understanding and appreciation of the sanctity of life.
It is crucial for those doing the killing to fully witness the act, so that they may fully understand the severity of their decision. The truth of the matter is that we are, in pulling the trigger, condemning our enemies to an eternity of something–whether that is heaven, hell, or simply nothingness–and there is no coming back.
When I play Call of Duty or any other first-person shooter game, I have no emotion connected with the act of killing my opponent. When I pull the trigger, all I feel is the vibration of the controller. Similarly, when the fighter pilot drops a bomb on a target, they do not feel anything except perhaps the shock from the explosion down below. When the sniper takes down his target, all he feels is the recoil. And when the soldier controlling the drone locks in on a group of suspected terrorists, all he or she sees are figures on a screen, no different from those on any other first-person shooter game. There is no better example of this than the always capricious Prince Harry. According to CNN, the young man who once wore a Nazi uniform to a costume party, “compared having his finger on the trigger of rockets, missiles and a 30mm cannon to playing video games.”
The Vietnam War was the first time in history where live footage of the war was broadcast. The result was widespread protests against the war. People were outraged because of what they were seeing. Since then, war has become a source of entertainment, to the extent that you can see footage of live fire combat filmed with the use of Go-Pro cameras fixed on the helmets of soldiers.
We have made a joke out of combat, and a huge reason for this is that we have distanced ourselves from the seriousness of killing. We are so quick to hop on board with the “kill them ay-rabs” attitude, without recognizing that once the trigger is pulled, their life is condemned to an eternity of heaven or hell.
This is not to say that defending your home is wrong. Being a soldier is not sinful. Of all of King David’s sins, being a warrior was not one of them. Nevertheless, God forbade him from building the temple because he was a “man of war and had shed blood.” This is because life is sacred, and though it is not sinful in and of itself to take a life, you are responsible for having committed the act. What is not right is making it easier—emotionally—to take a life, because it cheapens the sanctity of life.
