“Nothing new under the sun” arguments are an ancient device to normalize one-sided killing

Evidence

But every time such situations arose, certain contemporaries were troubled. Faced with a spectacle of armed violence that so manifestly contravened “the conventional understanding of war as an activity in which human dying and killing are exchanged,” it was not long before they expressed their indignation. But when these people began to express their objections too openly, they were often faced with a very ancient discursive strategy used to calm uneasy consciences and silence the most vociferous: the reassuring discourse of historical permanence. It is a matter of showing, with the backing of many historical examples, that there is nothing fundamentally new about this kind of situation, so it is perfectly acceptable. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 336 (#expands, via linked claim)

In an article entitled “In Defense of Drones: A Historical Argument,” David Bell criticizes those who regard these weapons as “something altogether new—a fantasy of science fiction that has become reality” and he points out that “if our technology is new, the desire to take out one’s enemies from a safe distance is anything but.” That is no doubt true, but how such a “historical” reminder could possibly constitute a “defense of drones” remains more mysterious. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 337 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Invoking historical precedent silences objections to one-sided killing — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 336; Historical continuity of remote killing does not justify drones — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 337; Revolutionary violence must be contextualized rather than used to dismiss its ideals (+1 more)

Related

• Invoking historical precedent silences objections to one-sided killing (similarity 0.89)
• Historical continuity of remote killing does not justify drones (similarity 0.89)
• Drones create a crisis in military ethos by contradicting traditional warrior values. (similarity 0.82)
• Armed drones make killing a priori one-directional, converting combat into slaughter. (similarity 0.81)
• Drone-weaponized remote control radicalizes war into one-sided killing from safe zones (similarity 0.81)
• The drone’s impossibility of capture deliberately converts kill into the only option (similarity 0.80)
• The drone made warfare absolutely unilateral, killing without risk of being killed (similarity 0.80)
• Eliminating reciprocal exposure to violence makes drones look like cowardly weapons. (similarity 0.80)
• Radical protection from death transforms war into one-sided slaughter or hunting (similarity 0.80)
• Drone warfare leaves the mutual right to kill formally intact but substantively empty. (similarity 0.79)
• Unilateral drone killing makes the legal right to kill merely formal. (similarity 0.79)
• Impersonal long-range killing is aseptic homicide rather than rational progress (similarity 0.79)
• Distance killing is not morally less terrible than passionate violence (similarity 0.79)
• Unilateral drone warfare collapses war into a one-sided putting-to-death (similarity 0.79)
• The drone should be judged against equivalent tactical weapons, not older bombers (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Invoking historical precedent silences objections to one-sided killing #expands (0.85) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 336
• Historical continuity of remote killing does not justify drones #corroborates (0.70) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 337
• Revolutionary violence must be contextualized rather than used to dismiss its ideals #complicates (0.65)