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.....

on the true costs of risk-less war

There is a concept in political philosophy, specifically in regards to the just war concept, called "risk-less" war, or risk-less warfare. The discussion surrounding this concept generally centers on two issues: moral issues, and terrorism issues. i think that there is a third. And i want to say a few things about each of them...

The first issue is the moral one. It seems odd to many people that there is a discussion about the morality of warfare. And it doesn't always get clearer when you engage the actual substance of the issue. Still, it is a topic of some concern in philosophy. Generally in warfare the moral issue of multiple people trying to kill each other is dealt with by assuming the the parties involved are acting in self defense with reference to each other. In short, it is ok that i am trying to kill you in a war, because i am only trying to defend myself from you, because you are representing another country or side in the conflict. Why is ok that you are trying to kill me? Why because you are acting in self defense to my trying to kill you, which is in self defense of your trying to kill me, which is......

Now you might reasonably ask yourself, "but if we are both acting in self defense, can't we both simply not be trying to kill each other? Wouldn't that end the entire conflict? Surely someone has to start the action! We can't both be trying to kill each other first in order to defend ourselves from an attack that hasn't come, can we?" I can't answer that. As someone who is essentially a pacifist, i am just as confused as you. But to quote one philosopher i have read on the matter, "wars have been and will continue to be fought. the self defense notion and just war theory allow them to be fought on moral grounds."

Got that? No, neither did i. I have some suspicion that this sort of ad hoc adjustment to the ideas of ethics and warfare is just an excuse to allow us to do what we wish and yet feel good about behaving ethically. Morals are not determined by actions, rather morals determine our actions. War remains inherently immoral in any case that is not true self-defense. And even then it may not be a moral endeavor depending upon the ways and means that are used to execute that war.

Which brings us to the moral issue of risk-less war. Even if we are to assume the questionable stance of mutual self-defense, risk-less warfare destroys this concept. The american military, as well as any other technologically advanced military, are simply immune to the self-defense concept when engaging less modern forces. In earlier wars, a technologically advanced military was an asset on the battlefield, but it was hardly an automatic success. More advanced and better supplied armies fell to lesser equipped forces with some regularity. But not always. The gap between the technological haves and have nots was simply no sufficient to guarantee success.

But the advanced technology of the modern battlefield is quickly approaching the point that this is no longer true. A single man in a modern stealth jet fighter is simply not at risk to a man with a rifle on the ground. Or even ten thousand such men. But he is certainly capable of destroying them....

So in what way is he acting in self-defense? He is not threatened. We might as well claim that a tank platoon is threatened by a kindergarden class. Would we think that the tank commanders have a moral right to open fire on the class? That would be a ridiculous claim. Similarly, it makes no sense to invoke self-defense in the case of our above mentioned fighter pilot.

This is the moral crux of the concept of risk-less war. We would not ask that soldiers go into battle less well protected or armed than they are capable. To do so would be both immoral and unreasonable. Yet if we send them into a conflict in which they are (nearly) invulnerable, they cannot act morally under even the already questionable concept of war as mutual self-defense. Practical reason demands that we protect soldiers. Morality suggests that the more protected they are, the less able they are to follow the dictates of morality.

Risk-less war and Terror

But practical reason also suggests that we have still further problems. Contrary to the oft discussed view of terrorism that we see in the news, terrorism is not a tool used only by a particular few, or an ideology that will be defeated, or a force that can be engaged. Terrorism is a tactic. A tactic engaged in by any group that sees no legitimate method of engaging a foe. Terrorism is defined as the use of violence and fear in the pursuit of political aims. Terrorism is the refuge of those who have no legitimate voice in a political system that they see as constraining their rights of capabilities. Terrorism is a natural outgrowth of risk-less war.

Any group seeking a political goal that is totally denied to them, who further perceive that they have no voice or options in the determination of policy, and who are unable to resist in anyway against a technologically superior force that is in effect practicing risk-less warfare, is highly likely to resort to terrorism. When all other possible avenues of addressing the concerns they hold are exhausted, terrorism becomes a highly likely option.

Our ability to make war at extremely little risk to ourselves, greatly increases the likely hood of terrorism against us. Presented with a force that they have no option of swaying in its opinion, and no possibility of defeating in a conflict, any motivated group that is not deeply pacifistic in nature will strike instead at the targets that they can hit. the civilian population. They become terrorists.

And yet, i will argue that neither of these things is the true cost of risk-less warfare.