Risk-less warfare, part 2

Part 1 is here.

In part 1, i discussed how risk-less warfare is both immoral, and practically speaking highly likely to create terrorism. Somewhat ironic since we are in the midst of a war on terror, that will create what it it is against (and has already done so) in the very act of carrying out the war. No wonder it is seen as an endless war.

But i personally think that the 3rd issue is where the true cost of risk-less war lies, not because of a higher monetary value, but rather due to the hidden nature of the cost itself.

Risk-less warfare is a product of technology. It takes place in a sort of "virtual warfare" setting. The nature of risk-less war is such that the only way it can be achieved is through sufficient technological advancement that humans are removed from the location of the conflict. We direct death at the targets of this style of warfare from miles, hundreds or even thousands of miles, of distance. The machines and technology required to do this have certain things that are characteristic about them.

First, they are expensive to build. Not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of allocation of resources. Unfortunately we don't have a simple metric for determining the cost of lost production and innovation due to the war machine. But we do have some staggering figures.

In 2006, the United States spent over 528 billion dollars on defense. 2.3 million people work for the department of defense in the US. Roughly 75% of all US federal research dollars go to military projects.

Ever wish that the batteries and electric engines in a hybrid car were more efficient so that you could not worry about gas prices? Ever wish you could get all the power you need from the sun? Ever wish that products were safer or that they lasted longer? How much difference in these areas would we see if the massive kinds of money going to military research went to these projects instead?

To be fair, and to answer critics before they ask, a great many military projects have had later civilian uses. I am not suggesting otherwise. I am suggesting that research directed at solving the above problems is more likely to produce results than directing research at military problems and awaiting secondary or even tertiary benefits.

As i pointed out, i don't mean this solely in terms of dollar cost, however they are also expensive in this way as well. A single cruise missile can cost several million dollars. And remember, this is a single use weapon. It is quite literally throwing money at a problem. A lot of money.

Surely this is inexpensive compared to lives that may be lost if it were not used, isn't it? Let us assume that a military target is identified in a small village. Let us further assume that we can choose between "sending in the marines" in a very literal sense, or firing a cruise missile into the area. It is entirely possible, perhaps even likely that we will lose one or more marine lives if we choose the first course of action. No lives will be lost (obviously) if we choose the second.

Astute observers will notice that that the question is misleading. Lives will be lost if we fire a cruise missile into a village. In fact despite the talk of so-called 'smart missile' in the military and press today, it is highly likely that innocent lives will be lost. But the math is seldom if ever done in that way. The lives of the 'enemy' simply don't make it into the loss column in the calculus of war. That is is one part of the cost. There is a great deal of talk about "winning hearts and minds" in the war on terror. But it largely remains talk. You can't win them if you are blowing them to bits.

There is a great deal of risk in sending troops into a situation verses simply playing the video game of virtual war and destroying a "target" from long range. But there is a benefit as well. Cruise missiles don't capture people. They don't discriminate between targets. They don't destroy potential members of your cause. They don't make judgement calls about when it is better to abort a mission rather than killing innocent civilians.

The costs of risk-less warfare are moral, in that they abandon the moral high ground. They are strategic, in that we lose the opportunity to bring others to our cause when we abandon that high ground. They are tactical, in that the very nature of risk-less warfare means that we abandon the decision making process at the point of the encounter. The cost is further both strategic and tactical in the manner in which it actually creates enemies and encourages terrorism as the only effective response. And finally it diverts large amounts of capital, resources, development and research into the war machine. This, in turn, makes war profitable. And if war is profitable, rather than expensive, then we can hardly blame a capitalist society for doing what it does best. Chasing the dollar signs into the battle field.....