In her essay “War Without Humans: Modern Blood Rites Revisited,” Barbara Ehrenreich proposes that modernizing war tactics and weapons alter how people fight wars and form societies. Ehrenreich offers her definition of war as “a self-replicating pattern of activity that may or may not require human participation.”
When first reading Ehrenreich’s essay, one claim, in particular, caught my attention. Ehrenreich states, “Another thing hobbling mass militaries is the increasing unwillingness of nations especially the more democratic ones, to risk large numbers of casualties.” This implies more military jobs are positioned behind computer screens rather than on the front lines. She continues, saying, “The hard right…has campaigned relentlessly against “big government,” apparently not noticing that the military is a sizable chunk of this behemoth.”
While Ehrenreich’s claim initially seemed accusative, I found this pattern of political opinions when searching further for sources on mechanical warfare. Oddly enough, I found no reliable sources from more conservative news outlets arguing against the topic. Such an absence of diverse sources was quite perplexing: Instead of even supporting the use of automated mechanical weaponry, the majority of conservative sources chose not to address the opposing argument at all. (With this in mind, I recognize that my sources as a whole lean towards the left.)
Policies of modernized warfare have been a controversial topic for years now. In fact, a 2013 article from New York Times, generally a more liberal news outlet, highlighted the immorality of mechanical warfare. Christof Heyns, a United Nations special rapporteur, supported his decision to prohibit lethal automated robotics. Heyns states “War without reflection is mechanical slaughter.” Here, Heyns forces us to question whether robots will make war more accessible, and consequently more frequent.
To relate back to our class discussions, the concept of war without humans reflects a conservative theory, in which a firm government acts as a threat to liberty. Here, presidential involvement would reduce as the president became able to delegate specific roles to automated robotics. If this were the case, would delegating multiple roles reflect presidential success adequately? If success in office associates with a president’s ability to mediate between all of their roles, American citizen’s view of presidential success would have to change as well.
But if we consider the liberal perspective as real, we then must reflect on the future of warfare amidst the current pattern of stewardship in presidential influence. Stewardship theory, originated by Rosevelt, promised to do anything necessary to protect American citizens, often correlating to an expansion of presidential powers and control. Extension of authority could become a problem as administrative roles rely more heavily upon technological advances, both in communication and modernization of weapons.
Behind a mindless computer screen, politicians will potentially act on hasty decisions without having time to think them over. In my opinion, increased presidential power and accessibility of warfare could eventually lead to deploying missiles at the click of a button in our technological and impulsive era.
Sources:
Cumming-bruce, Nick. “U.N. Expert Calls for Halt in Military Robot Development.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 May 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/world/europe/united-nations-armed-robots.html.
Ehrenreich, Barbara. “War Without Humans.” The Nation, 29 June 2015, http://www.thenation.com/article/war-without-humans/.
21st Century Citizenship 