The best diplomat I know is
a fully activated phaser bank. – Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott of the Starship Enterprise
On Stardate 3192.1, the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise encountered two
warring planets fighting the interplanetary equivalent of the Hatfield and the
McCoys feud (not Dr. McCoy). These futuristic
enemies did not settle their differences with muskets and pistols however. In order to save costs, the planets had
agreed not to use real bombs during their assaults, which tend to be messy and
loud. Instead, the two planets would
launch virtual attacks and the leaders of the two factions would then voluntarily
vaporize those citizens and combatants who were deemed to have been killed in
the simulation. No fuss, no muss. War goes on without the inconvenience of
rebuilding and the visceral repulsion to bloodshed and dismemberment.
Captain Kirk witnesses this madness and chastises the leadership of Eminiar VII
for making war too antiseptic, too neat:
Death... destruction, disease,
horror, that's what war is
all about, Councilman. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided. You've made it neat and simple, so neat and simple that you have no reason to stop it.
Here is an excerpt from Kirk’s
monologue brilliantly reenacted by Seth MacFarlane:
It is fair to ask whether or not President Obama’s expansion of the
unmanned predator drone program is leading us to a similar place of permanent
virtual wars. While the general
population in the U.S.
sits comfortably behind their keyboards and remote controls, our fighting
soldiers are sitting behind their keyboards and remote controls and playing
judge and jury overseas. It spares us
the inconvenience of
rebuilding and the visceral repulsion to bloodshed and dismemberment.
Obama’s expansion of the drone program, while not without its successes,
has made war easier for us to stomach.
Should war be easier for us to stomach?
His expansion of the program has also given birth to an expanded
definition of a combatant. Apparently,
an enemy combatant is now defined as someone “we kill, either on purpose or
accidently.” Sounds overly broad, but
the program is cost-effective and during these trying times of high deficits,
surely this is as important a consideration as the lives of a few suspected
terrorists and those who are standing near to them.
The expansion of the drone concept is not saved just for deployment in foreign
countries. It is closer to coming to the
homeland than you might think. On
Tuesday, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell said he supports the use of unmanned
drones over the United
States to assist law enforcement. In his words, the use of these drones over Virginia would be “the
right thing to do.”
“I think it’s great; I think we ought to be using technology to make law
enforcement more productive, cuts down on manpower and also more safe, that’s
why we use it on the battlefield,” McDonnell said on radio station WTOP.
Yes, this is why we are using drones over the battlefield. It’s more productive (i.e. kills more
efficiently), it cuts down on manpower (i.e. no activist judges or juries to
release people we KNOW are guilty), and it is more safe (i.e. except for an
uptick in carpal tunnel syndrome at home).
Somewhere, George Orwell just threw up a little bit in his mouth.
Of course, the governor added that we would need to pay close attention to
the protection of civil liberties, like privacy, which is ironic coming from the
guy who supported invasive transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking legal
abortions in his state. One thing I can
safely say after reading about the military use of the drone program. The program appears to be specifically
designed to eliminate civil liberties and privacy, not protect those rights. A domestic drone program would naturally
accomplish the same mission. What would
the Founders say?
Killing bad guys who are intent on harming innocent people is good. The real question becomes identifying the bad
and sparing the good. I believe that we
would all be better served in the long run if such a program had more
transparency and those who made these life and death decisions had some
accountability for their decisions.
Eventually, once the inhabitants of Eminiar VII and Vendikar experience a taste of real warfare, they
quickly negotiate for peace. It must
then be true that War is Peace. The MADD
theory is cost-inefficient, but at least on Star Trek and in the Cold War, it
worked.
Maybe reining death from above by warriors without risk from planes without
pilots is a bit too safe and a bit too easy.
Doesn’t it bother you just a little?
I think it should.
No comments:
Post a Comment