| Abstract: | It is the elusive target of policymakers, ethicists and military strategists: the target of a ‘just war’. Since the advent of precision-guided munitions in the mid-1970s, commentators claimed that surgical-strike technology would advance the cause of jus in bello, ending the longstanding tension between effective military engagement and morality. Today, many policymakers accept that the ethical dilemmas that arise in the ‘fog of war’ can be negotiated by the technical precision of weaponry. This is, at best, only partially accurate. At worst, its misplaced optimism risks numbing the moral sense of strategists and, just as importantly, the sensibilities of the general populace. We argue that the development of precision guided munitions (PGM), stand-off weaponry and military robotics may force policymakers and strategists to experience new ethical tensions with an unprecedented sensitivity and may require them to make specific policy adjustments. In the move toward more quantitative approaches to political science and international affairs it is often forgotten that military ethics, and the ethics of military technologies, turn on the question of human judgment. We argue that the ethical implications of revolution in military affairs (RMA) are best investigated by way of a detailed discussion of the tenuous relationship between ethical decision-making and the workings of military technology. |
