Risk-free drone operators morally resemble assassins, not soldiers

Evidence

On the surface, of course, what he is saying is that it is morally necessary to accept the principle of one’s own exposure to risk in order to be able to kill in warfare. But, in truth, his palimpsest of citation is very well chosen, for how is it possible to justify homicide in a noncombat situation? For those seeking to justify such activities, there is only one place to turn: doctrines on political assassination. That is the lesson Walzer provides as a reader of Camus. On the surface, Walzer certainly does appear to make a clear misinterpretation, for he twists the nihilist maxim in order to turn it into the moral motto of classic warfare: “One cannot kill unless one is prepared to die.” However, at an underlying level, he is making another point: the agents of “war without risks” are in reality like assassins who use bombs to kill their targets; unlike idealistic terrorists, they have chosen to be ready to kill only if they are certain that themselves will not die. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 509

Categorization

• XREF: Directly serves the reader’s stated interest in how the drone transformed the moral space of war. Echoes chapter themes on assassination vs. warfare. — connects to: Drone warfare creates a new ethical-political norm neither war nor peace; Drone warfare establishes a norm neither war nor peace via imperial immunity; Drones are morally justified by preventing one’s own casualties (+11 more)

Related

• Drone warfare adopts assassination ethics while refusing assassination’s self-sacrifice (similarity 0.94)
• Drone operators are called brave for risking their psychic rather than physical lives (similarity 0.88)
• Drones create a moral hazard that shifts risk onto others. (similarity 0.87)
• Drones are morally justified by preventing one’s own casualties (similarity 0.86)
• The drone exemplifies the moral hazard of acting without bearing costs (similarity 0.86)
• Drone warfare creates a new ethical-political norm neither war nor peace (similarity 0.85)
• Drone design produces a strong moral buffering effect on operators (similarity 0.84)
• Drones’ necroethics embody a nationalism of self-preservation (similarity 0.84)
• Drone morality inverts ethics to make unendangered killing good (similarity 0.84)
• Humanitarian drone justification rests on a logic of the lesser evil (similarity 0.84)
• Drone warfare establishes a norm neither war nor peace via imperial immunity (similarity 0.84)
• The drone reconciles liberal security statehood with unrestricted waging of war. (similarity 0.83)
• Drones fuse killing and caring into an integrated humilitarian power (similarity 0.83)
• Remote killing free from retaliation creates a moral hazard problem (similarity 0.83)
• The drone is a classic moral hazard example (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Drones create a moral hazard that shifts risk onto others. #expands (0.80) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 588
• Diffused agency in drone networks fabricates irresponsibility by diluting intentionality into accident #exemplifies (0.60) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 665