Remotely Controlled Weapons Systems Should Not Be Used In Combat
A remote controlled system is a remotely controlled weapon station which can be installed on any type of vehicle or other platforms (land and sea-based). Such equipment is used on modern military vehicles, as it allows a gunner to remain in the relative protection of the vehicle. But there are also weapons like joysticks that don’t require the presence of any human being on site. The most known are the “Spot and Shoot” weapons, used in Gaza by the Israeli army. It is about operators sitting in front of a TV monitor from which they can control the action with a PlayStation-style joystick. This second type of weapons can be met on land, on sea or in the air – also known as drones.
The proposition argues that this remote killing, from the distance, shouldn’t be used in combats, combats that can also be unilateral. There is a significant difference between the first category, which requires the presence of human being on site and the second, which is like playing Counter-Strike with real persons. The first category gives certain equality for both sides, meanwhile the second leaves the enemy without any protection and this kind of fighting is what shouldn’t be used no matter what! When a combatant uses a weapon which is installed on a vehicle is for the protection of his life and this is right. But when the combatant uses a TV screen and a weapon to kill the suspects from a safe distance is like taking advantage of this position and gibing the human life, which is wrong.
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Playing like God
First of all, the most common used remotely controlled weapons are those used by the Israeli army in Gaza. And what is even more important is that women are those pushing the button, because there are not enough men to deal with the dangers. Besides that, the religion is not against putting women to this, because it is not like putting their lives in danger. And this can lead to augmenting the Israeli army by the use of those human beings that should be mothers and wives. These women will become more insensitive and abnormal. People should try to prevent this transformation in animals, in primitive men and women. Killing from the distance means killing with cold blood. In fact, this means playing the role of God and no one should be left to decide who is suspect and has to be killed and who has the right to live.
Since ancient times people has used mercenaries and assasin for attacking another one without selfputting in danger [[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/History_of_Herodotus]]. The most famous example are the Hashshashins, an order of assasins well-known in the midle east, they exist since the midle age, very cautious and well trained to eleminated their designated targets without been spotted.
Also, there is no relation between ban or not ban this kind of weapons, an the women participation in war. Militaries forces are formed by men and women. Besides, that not the matter in this debate. Anyway, war is a war, and it's dangerous, cruel and bloody, and it doesn't make difference of genre or anything.
In the other hand, the use of Remotely Controlled Weapons Systems could give a new dimensions in tactics, although the intentions and the harm caused by the war are going to persist in the same measure, as we are going to prove in our arguments. However, there is a plenty of improvements for our life, including the civil one, if we don't ban this kind of weapons.
Also, who said that the remotely controlled weapons were going to be managed by not qualify personal or that the others ones are only used by qualified persons?
The human transformation into evil
This remote killing technology was first used for spying but then it started to be used for killing. And this happened because of the declining recruitment levels and a population less ready to risk death in combat. But this desire to stop risking their lives in combats should force sides to find more democratic ways to solve the conflicts, not to find more convenient ways to depersonalise killing and kill with impunity!
The tecnchology in every process of the human life looks up into one goal: to help the human been for he to enjoy his life. This caractheristic is not different in the war subject, because whit the Remotely Controlled Weapons System, less soldiers will be needed by the goverments, less soldiers will die in the war field, and the troops will avoy injuries with bullets or other kind of weapons involved whit the combat . “this is the beggining of a deep transformation in our Army -Said Antony Sebasto, associate director of the Armament Engineering and Technology Army to the paper La Nación- Is not about create automaton robots for replace our soldiers, but to increase the efficacy and the level of survival of our troops in the field”
By other hand, these weapons are going to be used by the same trained humans. There is no relation between kind of weapon and trained or not forces,because one soldier could use several weapons at the same time.
Too low accuracy
Our opinion is that life should be considered more valuable and should be more protected. Otherwise there will be no line of distinction between the human being and those animals that kill in order to protect their teritory.
Also, bombs have a low accuracy if you want to kill just one person.
In the other hand, with high developed remotely controlled weapons, for example micro-bots. Militaries could kill just a person with a DNA match, that would give the hightest accuracy possible in the world.
The human transformation into evil 2
The opposition states that „it is not about creating automatic robots to replace our soldiers” but the proposition would like to ask how is this afirmation going to stand when both sides will use remotelly controlled weapons at the same time? When things arrive to that, there will be a robots fight and no human being will be injured or killed. Are we willing to arrive to that? If this can be envisaged, then we could also imagine that due to the boost of technological development, that „robot” could take over the control and could start not to listen anymore to the orders of the human combatant. This is why the proposition is of opinion that peoples should draw a line when it comes to fighting and remotelly controlled weapon shouldn’t be among what is acceptable. People should learn to say no to cruelty and to turn their attention towards other means of gaining what they need, means that don’t involve violence of such intensity.
Besides, there is no relation between the use of that kind of weapons and consider or no the existence of a external threat. That only changes the mean and not the situation. For anyone is a threat to be in danger of being killed, it doesn't matter how.
About the possiblity to use robots instead of soldiers. First, we talk about robots as "A machine or device that operates automatically or by remote control" [[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/robot]]. Second, if we could get to use robots instead of soldier in the battle field completely, we would humanize the war, leaving the human out of danger in the first steps of an eventual warfare. Third, there is no prove for stating that robots could gain conscience, anyway, it's just a matter of turning off the machine for eliminate it.
Finally, as we have said before, a war is war, with any kind of weapons there is going to be blood and pain. However, if we put our sigth to the Cold War era, we could say that Remotely Controlled Weapons can prevents real combats. It was thanks to the continual threat of the remotely launch of nuclear missiles that neither the US nor the USSR start a truth warfare.
Arbitrary executions 2
Romania proposition summary
One cannot say that for the sake of avertting the short circuits or the quantity of wires in the house it is ok that millions of people die. Moreover, the argument with the highest accuracy cannot be associated with the idea that less people will die. Perhaps less casualties will be, but more people will die at a higher accuracy. More enemies, but still people.
The opposition states that when a country wants to use a RCS, it will invest in trainings. This could be true if there are advantages that come from these trainings. But when the goal is reached even without training (meaning that the target dies, even if inocent people die as well), I wonder whether those trainings would take place. Gaza is an exemple of that, even if it is not the rule.
The proposition doesn’t say that RCS would turn soldiers into cowards, but that less people are willing to risk their lives in combats and these two ideas aren’t synonyms. Not to wish to die for things that can be achevied by other means, even slower, doesn’t make you a coward, but a person that understands the value of life.
We could understand to use any means to protect life, like when a threat appears. But it is clear as daylight that RCS aren’t going to be used in a defense purpose, but to sustain strategies that have to do with teritorries, oil or just dominance. It is hard to believe that states will invest enormous sums to train soldiers in using RCS just to be prepared if somtehing happens. Besides that, there is no wonder that the first states that have RCS are the developped ones and not the little and unprotected ones. So the question that arises is whom are the great states standing in fear of? And the answer is no one . And this is the clue that indicates the real targets of RCS when they are in the hands of the developped countries. And this argumentation strengthens even more the idea that it is too dangerous to allow RCS use in combats. This is why the proposition is of opinion that remotely controlled weapons should not be used in combats!
We put in danger less people in the combat
Otherwise, whit this kind of weapons, less inocent people can be hurt, because the specific targets, like terrorists, are precisely located by high technology and civil population will not be involved in a firefight. The attack is more direct and avoyd mistakes of this character
Secondly, the accuracy of the target location has nothing to do with remotely controlled weapons, because these targets can be distroyed even with the traditional kind of weapons. In this point, the opposition refers to an exact localisation of the target and not to the advantages of remotelly controlled weapons when such an exact target is found. This is why this argument cannot be taken into consideration.
That give a boost to scientific development in wireless technology
In the same way, science sponsored by military always run more quickly than civil sponsored investigation. Due to that the matter is to survive against a external threat. Our ability to fly in aircrafts, for example, had its peak of evolution in the 2nd World War, and later, the Cold War moves humans to the space. Also, thanks to a military project, ARPA, internet exist nowadays, and we can communicate each other from all around the world and share photos, comments, feelings and relationships [[http://bit.ly/sxjg]]
So, it’s a fact, if with don’t ban remotely controlled weapons, wireless technology and Mechatronic engineering are going to have a lot of improvements in order to create easy, stable and secure protocol to control this kind of weapons, and to make them strong and efficient. This advances are going to be reflected in the civil world with less wire in our house, that reduce the disorder and the dangers related to sparks from a short circuits, and in better machines for our houses and specially in the industry, with better robots for the manufacturing process, making the products cheaper and more accesible.
As far as the second idea is concerned, that in military things go quicker, the general opinion is that remotelly controlled weapons are not used in response to an external threat, but to attack by taking advantage of the surprise and lack of protection. This is what leads to the conclusion that by the use of this kind of weapons life is taken like a joke.
Besides that, when wireless technology is used, there appears a certain vulnerability which comes from what hackers can do in this century. They can take advantage of these systems and hijack the missiles or bullets. This makes place to more chaos and lower accuracy. This kind of vulnerability cannot be met when the combatant is on spot and at the trigger. Moreover, the proposition is of opinion that when life is compared to the boost of scientific development, the first should win. This means that a sluggish evolution is preferable to a depersonalised killing operated by not so trained people. We are continuing with this idea that remotelly controlled weapons are going to be used by not so trained people due to the fact that female soldiers are preferred to operate remote killing devices because of a shortage of male recruits to combat units. Our quoted source continues by saying that the Spot and Shoot system has mostly attracted attention in Israel because it is operated by 19- and 20-year-old female soldiers, making it the Israeli army’s only weapons system operated exclusively by women [[http://www.jkcook.net/Articles3/0503.htm]]. I don’t know what the opposition’s impression is, but a 19 years old teenager cannot be considered as a trained soldier!
Better trained military forces
Also, who develop this kind of weapons? Scientist in the military labs. In this order fo ideas, if a country want to use remotely controlled weapons they need to invest at least in trainers, in the other way, they are going to be as a amateur football player with a professional football sneakers. Dangerous, but no so difficult to defeat.
More tactical combats
Indeed, we don't need to look at the past. In the present we have the example of the hebrew-arab conflicts. They don't have all the technological war advances that the developed countries have. But they don't fear to death, and for that reason they act in combat in a rush way, without thinking neither in the own civil people nor in themselves. In fact, they don't care if they have to be the bomb. That why they are very dangerous with any kind of weapons. An in this part, we have to emphasize thar Proposition have state several times that with remotely controlled weapons soldiers will became cowards in some way, but, as we can see in the hebrew-arab conflict, even if they have acces to some kind of these weapons, they still don't fear to death, moreover, for them it's an honor to die in the name of that war.
Besides, this kind of weapons brings to military forces new possibilities for creating strategies which were not seeing before, in the same way that new dangers appear, also new ways of defense are born. It's like the war between the mal-ware and the Security Software Suites, at the begining they were only the virus and the anti-virus, now there are a lot of new threats but also new means of protecction, so, the real danger is technical the same.
First, the proppositon states that with this kind of weapons the war will become more bloody and cruel, specially for the civil population that can be attacked from very far and with a no trained staff. We have show that a War is a War, and the use of Remotelly Controlled Weapons only change the means, and not the results. In fact, they'll be able to bring into war the best accuracy possible with DNA match, and there is the possiblity that one day the first steps of war will be between machines and not humans. Also, at least in Developed Countries, military force have notes about location, maps, diagrams and technical information to protect the civil population (because all states have to keep that information, as we have showed before) , that could guarantee a not indiscriminate use of this kind of arms.
Second, the propposition states that promoting this kind of weapons, nations are going to have worse trained military forces and cowardly ones, as they have show with the Gaza example. But Opposition has proved that there is no relation between those facts. Indeed, we have the example of the CIA in the United States, with its well trained agents, and also the need of great scientist and trainers for developing and efectively use of the Remotelly Controlled Weapons. Besides, we have to keep in mind that in the middle east people doesn't fear to death, it's and honor to die in battle, aspect essential that influence their way to fight.
Third, opposition have demonstrated that there are some benefits around the use of the weapons which are the matter of this debate. As it have been around the history, military always boost the science and the technology, Internet and Airplanes are just two examples of that phenomenon. With remotely controlled weapons, the wireless communication and the mechatronics engineering are going to evolve in order to create more secure protocols and more efficient machines. Also, we open a door of new way to make the war, with better strategies that could involve less civil population than the ones used today.
Then, as it can be appreciated, there is no reason for banned the Remotelly Controled Weapons Systems, they are not going to create a worse war and besides, they comes with benefits for civil and military population.
What do you think?