Warfare Technology and the Human Experience
Advanced technologies alter the human experience in warfare. Improved technology is supposed to make the war effort more precise and make the experience obsolete. This is however not the the case. Changes in technology have historically shown how dangerous wars can be and how difficult the human experience can be. The nuclear bomb was supposed to end all great power wars. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II proved that not all technologies were good for humankind. In the 21st century fight against terrorism, it has become more difficult to identify the enemy and hence the use of drones. The precision of drones has been trumped by the difficulty in finding targets leading to civilian deaths.
This paper seeks to explore the effect of war technology on the human experience. It further explores why different cultures adopt war as a mechanism for resolving disputes and getting what they want. Understanding the motivations to go war to helps in figuring out innovations on war instruments. It also aids in understanding why people choose to remain peaceful. Peace is often hard to achieve to promote especially in situations where cultures are surrounded by war and power hungry neighbors. The paper makes references to both historical and modern cases of war.
When states or private actors decide to go to war or are forced to go to war, they take with them the best technology they have in hand. The are also aware that default desired human experience of peace is no longer possible. War becomes a means to peace. Both the lives of civilians and those who wage war are changed. Wars are fought for a myriad of reasons. There are religious, economic, political, social, cultural and moral wars. Some wars are waged by individuals whose intent is chaos. They do not have legitimate reasons to wage war but to see the destruction of mankind. Even though the reasons can be different, the outcome is always the same - death and misery.
One of the greatest military generals in history, Napoleon Bonaparte argued that “in war, moral considerations account for three quarters, the actual balance of forces only for the other quarter” (Boot, 2010, p. 1). The question of morality and technology in war can help understand this human experience. The problem with technology especially modern technology is that humans are creating instruments of war that have the potential of not being accountable to humans. Moral and ethical considerations can be jeopardized especially if one is faced with potential annihilation from the nuclear bomb.
The latest innovation in warfare technology is the drone. When governments decide to use drones in attacking terrorist cells, the goal is to limit civilian casualties. This stems from the understanding that civilians should not suffer for the provocations and acts of a few rotten apples in society. Drones however do come with complications. Zubair, a 13 year old boy from Pakistan testified before the United States Congress in 2013. He told Congress that his family had been affected by drones. He had an injured sister from a drone attack and a destroyed home. Zubair’s testimony provides a glimpse into the human experience during and after war. He said, “I do not love blue skies. In fact, I now prefer grey skies. The drones do not fly when the skies are grey. When skies brighten drones return and we live in fear” (Santos, 2013). The goal of drone technology is to reduce civilian casualty but as is evident in Zubair’s testament this is not the case. Drones kill during the war and they return to create fear at moments human believe should be peaceful.
Drones also alter the experience of those who are controlling them. People from remote locations in the United States can strike targets in places like Syria and Afghanistan using remote controls. Their experience of war is different since they can be able to carry on with their normal daily routines while terrorising villages in other parts of the world. Technology has the capacity to make people indifferent to the causes and effects of war. Drone pilots do simulations like they are in video games, this means that war can be reduced to a game. The human element is removed since one does not get to directly confront the enemy in a battlefield.
Developments like the use of drones, reveal changes in warfare strategies. Superpowers like the United States now rely on high technology in executing wars. An example of how high technology changes warfare is the sudden fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The war against Iraq was quick and the changes it brought about were swift as well. This swiftness however did not mean that the result of the war was desirable. The replacement of the dictatorship with some semblance of democracy destabilized Iraq leading to the emergence of dangerous organizations like the Islamic State or ISIS. Improvements in warfare technology did not favor the Iraqis.
Drones are just a mere part of a greater transformation in warfare technology. The greatest development is the creation of war robots. These come with advantages but also ethical issues that many scientists and researchers are yet to address. Robots being developed have the capacity to make war decisions that mimic humans. They also have the capacity to process information more quickly than an average soldier would do. Lin and colleagues observed that “not only would robots expand the battlespace over difficult, larger terrain, but they also represent a significant force multiplier - each effectively doing the work of many human soldiers, while immune to sleep deprivation, fatigue, low morale, perceptual and communication challenges in the ‘fog of war’ and other performance-hindering conditions” (Lin, Bekey & Abney 2009, p. 49).
Warfare technology has enabled human beings to quantify the effects of war on human experience. Going all the way back to history, Individuals like King charles VIII’ 1494 blitzkrieg or crusade was a turning point in warfare and human experience. This was a religious war fought by an individual whose quest for glory was driven by his lack of intelligence and a twisted morality. Charles took advantage of gunpowder discoveries and went on an unparalleled quest for glory which resulted in the loss of many lives. Killing was made relatively easier and less cumbersome. Charles’ war is one of the wars fought in the name of religion and even in the 21st century, wars are being fought in the name of Gods.
Motivations to Remain Peaceful or Go to War
For cultures to go to war, a lot of reasoning is placed in the need for war. History is full of wartime speeches that justify war. World War II saw historically significant speeches made by individuals like Hitler and Churchill on the merits and demerits of war. In most cases, those who wage war often argue that they are not that belligerent but they think war is a necessity. One of the reasons in history why cultures or people go to war is because of their religious beliefs. Before venturing into the 21st century challenge of terrorism, it is imperative that we go further down in history to the crusades and review the role played by religion is pushing a war agenda. The crusades saw the coming together of Christians in an effort to rid the world of all other inferior religions and those who did not believe. Religious ideas morphed into political ones, ending with a disastrous war.
In the modern era, religious wars are more evident in jihadism. Those who wage jihad do so with the firm belief that their actions are acceptable in the eyes of Allah. In an attempt to create pure religious societies, individuals and states have fought tirelessly in the establishment of state religions. An example of how religion plays a role in the waging of wars is the never ending Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The great religious animosity between Judaism and Islam is manifest in the brutality of the war between the two states. This war pities a strong state with powerful war capabilities against a weak state that is infiltrated by terrorists and anarchists. Toft argues that organized religion has recently experienced a revival and this revival has inspired violence and war. Examples of revival and violence include “al-Qaida’s attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, as well as civil wars raging between Buddhists and Hindus in Sri lanka, between Hindus and Muslims in India, and among Muslims in Iraq” (Toft 2007, p. 98). This escalation of violence is attributed to the nature of religions especially the uncompromising nature of religions that belong to the Abrahamic tradition. Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
The texts in the Abrahamic tradition though interpreted differently, do place limits on the conduct of believers. They also prescribe the best way that believers should act. The ability to follow certain commands are rewarded while the inability to do so is punished. There is also a general understanding that the honor of sacred beliefs be kept. Toft notes that in the Islamic and Christian tradition, individuals or cultural groups are encouraged to “discount their physical survival” (2007, p. 100). The discounting of the physical and elevation of the spiritual makes it easy to make sacrifices and sometimes sacrifices come in the form of war. Thus religious wars can emerge and the more followers a religion has the potential for high number of deaths arise.
Revenge is another motivating factor is going to war. World War II was partly a war of revenge. The Germans sought to recover from the humiliations of World War I caused by the Treaty of Versailles. A theory of being stabbed in the back emerged in Germany after the war. Germany used what appeared to be legitimate rational reasons to go to war. It needed land to feed its population and it wanted to protect Germans that were replaced by the Treaty of Versailles and the expropriation of German land.
It can be noted that wars that are driven by revenge are rare but revenge constitutes a greater part of some wars fought for economic, political and cultural reasons. Tied to revenge is the just war theory. An example of just war theory in action is the United States’ invasion of Iraq. In an attempt to show that the state was doing whatever it takes to protect its citizens, the United States government invaded Iraq and noted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This came at a point when the country was still heaving from the attack of the New York Twin Towers in 2001. Attacking Iraq was both an act of revenge as well as pre-emption.
Like religion, groups of people are sometimes driven by ethnic considerations in the waging of war. Hitler’s World War was partly a race war. Throughout his childhood, Hitler harbored anti-semitic views which got an outlet when he came into a position of authority. The near extermination of the Jews was driven by blind hatred. The Bosnian massacre and War in the Democratic Republic of Congo, were all driven by the need for ethnic purity. The excesses of ethnic motivations for war are more apparent in the killing of more than six million Jews by the Nazis in the Second World War and in the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Ethnic wars are often more brutal than those fought for political and economic reasons.
Civilizations and Warfare technology
Different civilizations react differently to changes in the instruments of war. One of the most celebrated thesis of the past century is Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations. Huntington noted that the world is composed of disparate civilizations with different ways of how the future of the world should be shaped. This difference has the potential to lead to conflict. The many civilizations of the current global order provides challenges especially during the age of the nuclear war.
The fear of global leaders for the past decade has been the potential of Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb. This would cause instability since Iran has threatened Israel with extinction. This shows the clash between Western and Islamic civilization. Iran with a nuclear bomb would destabilize global order and so would South Korea. This however does not mean that Huntington’s thesis should be accepted at face value. Some of the problems with the military and warfare and global order seem to be caused more by leadership as compared to the type of civilization.
In conclusion, warfare technology is increasingly changing. Humans are developing sophisticated methods of combat like drones and robots to replace humans in the battlefield. These changes alter human relations and experience of war. Ethics and moral boundaries are challenged. The increased innovation in war instruments also mean that the demand for peace instruments increase. Innovations are bringing out more and more dangerous technology.
References
Abad-Santos, A. (2013). This 13 year old is scared when the sky is blue because of our drones. The Wire. Retrieved from http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/10/saddest-words-congresss-briefing-drone-strikes/71048/
Boot, M. (2006). War Made New: Weapons, Warriors, and the making of the Modern World. London: Penguin.
Huntington, S. P. (1996). The Clash of civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Levy, J. S. & Thompson, William. R. (2010) Causes of War. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lin, P., Kekey, G. & Abney, K. (2009). Robots in war: Issues of risk and ethics. Ethics and Robots.
Toft, M. D. (2007). Getting religion? The puzzling case of Islam and civil war. International Security 31, 4, p. 97-131
