Information is as strong a tool as it is a weapon, and the same is true for misinformation and disinformation. Being uninformed or misinformed are dangerous in our world today. Being critical and discerning with what you see and hear is integral to maintaining a fair and balanced view of the world around you. Sure, everyone has biases and prejudices, but being aware of those and not allowing them to overtake your view of facts can diminish their effect on your ideas and beliefs. In 50 years time, no one wants to realize they were just another version of those standing outside of churches denouncing interracial or same sex marriages. We aspire to be better than those before us, and to make things better for those after us, and the first step to that is to know what better is and can be.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Final Blog!
History in the making is an eye opener. Learning about the plethora of issues facing the world, and the issues building up to them is integral to being a citizen of the world at large, rather than just one of your own country. This is what more education should strive for- bipartisan information that allows the recipient of the information to draw their own conclusions, to form their own opinions. Information can be impartially presented, or at least have alternative perspectives (to the presenter's) equally available. Luckily, I've had such an experience with this class. Often one's own beliefs can slant or skew the stories being told, and being so particularly concerned with facts vs how they're portrayed as I am, I appreciate there can be difficulty when the class is so politically charged. From drone strikes, to the wars in Afghanistan and against Terror, there are many perspectives to be considered, and many's feelings are invested in such things.
Sunday, December 7, 2014
From Stones to Drones
Tools for combat or war have been among the first technological advancements in most, if not all civilizations. The evolution of tanks, grenades, and even automatic weapons have been fraught with controversy. Drones are the next step in our collective ongoing tale of war. Given the violent use of these devices and the advantes/drawbacks inherent in their uses, there's been much controversy behind the use of drones both abroad and within our borders. There are many factors to keep in mind when discussing warfare, and among the most important is the safety of the soldiers engaging. With this in mind, I believe military use of drones overseas is justifiable given certain parameters. Situations where a target is inaccessible by troops, or heavily entrenched by enemy combatants are the ideal. Surveillance using drones is a touchier subject, and should be heavily restricted to hostile areas, so as to not invade the privacy and sovereignty of other nations.
Some suggest that drones may be as dangerous to civilians as to enemy troops. This may be true, but to speak of this without referencing the combat that drones may replace is to speak of it in a vaccuum. In July 2012 it was reported that, for the first time, drone strikes had a civilian casualty that was "at or close to zero", following a downward trend of them. Detractors further note that drone strikes may force opposing nations to develop them as well to keep up, technologically. This may be true, but development has always been a factor in warfare. Countries have always competed for more advanced weaponry, whether at open war or during times of peace. Guns led to the development of automatic guns, artilery evolved into tanks, etc. since the advent of war. Halting progress in the hope that your opponent will see that complacency and counter with their own is naive.
Drone strikes hurting innocent civilians and children are always tragedies, and the most care should be done to avoid such as often as possible. Use of excessive force is inexcusable at large or at home, and when lives are loss it should be especially penalized. But a hypothetical future wherein drones are out of control shouldn't prevent their use to avoid the realities of war. Civilians are not and should not be treated as soldiers, but when the options are between allowing soldiers to overrun an area to search for targets or allowing a drone to fly overhead to discern locations, I believe that the present safety should trump potential situations that could come about because of the technlogy.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/13/opinion/bergen-civilian-casualties/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/02/drone-strikes-thorny-legal-questions
http://theweek.com/article/index/211387/should-police-use-unmanned-aerial-drones
http://theweek.com/article/index/223047/obamas-defense-cuts-can-drones-really-keep-us-safe
http://theweek.com/article/index/235269/no-debate-about-drones
Some suggest that drones may be as dangerous to civilians as to enemy troops. This may be true, but to speak of this without referencing the combat that drones may replace is to speak of it in a vaccuum. In July 2012 it was reported that, for the first time, drone strikes had a civilian casualty that was "at or close to zero", following a downward trend of them. Detractors further note that drone strikes may force opposing nations to develop them as well to keep up, technologically. This may be true, but development has always been a factor in warfare. Countries have always competed for more advanced weaponry, whether at open war or during times of peace. Guns led to the development of automatic guns, artilery evolved into tanks, etc. since the advent of war. Halting progress in the hope that your opponent will see that complacency and counter with their own is naive.
Drone strikes hurting innocent civilians and children are always tragedies, and the most care should be done to avoid such as often as possible. Use of excessive force is inexcusable at large or at home, and when lives are loss it should be especially penalized. But a hypothetical future wherein drones are out of control shouldn't prevent their use to avoid the realities of war. Civilians are not and should not be treated as soldiers, but when the options are between allowing soldiers to overrun an area to search for targets or allowing a drone to fly overhead to discern locations, I believe that the present safety should trump potential situations that could come about because of the technlogy.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/13/opinion/bergen-civilian-casualties/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/02/drone-strikes-thorny-legal-questions
http://theweek.com/article/index/211387/should-police-use-unmanned-aerial-drones
http://theweek.com/article/index/223047/obamas-defense-cuts-can-drones-really-keep-us-safe
http://theweek.com/article/index/235269/no-debate-about-drones
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)