The following paper will examine one of the more recently militarily implemented technological advances, namely precision guided munitions (PGMs), which have become an integral part of the strategy of today’s undisputed technological forerunner in military hardware, the U.S. Armed Forces. This technology uses both high-end military technology as well as civilian technology, such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) to navigate by. One of the aims of this paper is to show how these changes in technology is an indicator of a more humane focus on “our” soldier, i.e. a decreasing willingness to put these soldiers’ life on the line. It will be argued that the use of such weaponry as PGMs, seemingly, in a techno-fetishist way, has made war more humane, but that the rhetoric surrounding them also has had the effect of privileging the wielders of these in a highly asymmetrical way.
Table of Contents
Technology and war
What revolution? The image of the costless war
The myth of the surgical strike – has PGMs made war (seem) more humane?
Who has the power to discriminate? Privileging actors through access to PGMs
What is enabling the PGMs? Neutralization of the distinction between civilians and military targets.
Monopolists of War. How PGMs promote increased warfare
Conclusion
Objectives and Core Themes
This paper investigates whether the implementation of Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) in modern warfare has truly rendered conflict more humane, or if it has merely shifted the burden of violence and altered the rhetoric surrounding military intervention. It questions the assumption that technological accuracy necessarily leads to reduced civilian suffering and explores how these weapons reinforce power asymmetries.
- The impact of military technology on civilian-military boundaries.
- The concept of "costless" war and its role in modern military doctrine.
- Techno-fetishism and the sanitized representation of warfare in public media.
- Ethical dilemmas in asymmetrical conflicts and the usage of "surrogate warriors."
- The influence of PGMs on the legitimacy of international military force.
Excerpt from the Book
The myth of the surgical strike – has PGMs made war (seem) more humane?
Are the PGMs really that sophisticated in distinguishing combatants from non-combatants? The hallmark of the PGM is that, unlike its “dumb” predecessor, it contains a sophisticated sensor and control system, such as an onboard computer and adjustable flight fins, that allows for a significantly higher percentage of accuracy. The precision is achieved via the use of either laser guidance or GPS-technology (in the former case a spotter is needed on the ground to designate the target) (Global Security 2008). In either case, the bombs need to have assigned targets to them, information that is provided by various sources of intelligence (Pretorius 2003:171), and as such, the bombs are not any smarter than the people feeding them with this information. If the information is wrong and we end up pulverizing a hospital full of civilians, there is no doubt that the PGM did its job, but with a grotesque result – in the words of Mr. Bigum, Lockhead Martins Vice President; “Probably the weakest area is knowledge finding the targets” (Bigum quoted in Hunter 2004:19). Likewise, even if the information is correct and we actually do have e.g. a terrorist’s hideout in the crosshair, there is always going to be a factor of uncertainty present: How many civilians, how many non-combatants may be residing within the complex that is about to be destroyed? In this way, the PGMs can only be said to be peripherally discriminatory: there is still absolute non-discrimination in the area of impact.
Summary of Chapters
Technology and war: This chapter introduces the inseparable historical link between technological evolution and warfare, noting the modern erosion of boundaries between civilian and military spheres.
What revolution? The image of the costless war: This section discusses the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) and how the U.S. military utilizes PGMs to construct the public narrative of a "costless" war.
The myth of the surgical strike – has PGMs made war (seem) more humane?: This chapter critiques the technical limitations of PGMs and argues that the notion of surgical precision often obscures the reality of collateral damage and individual dignity.
Who has the power to discriminate? Privileging actors through access to PGMs: This chapter examines how the limited access to high-tech weaponry creates power asymmetries, potentially incentivizing desperate adversaries to use human shields.
What is enabling the PGMs? Neutralization of the distinction between civilians and military targets.: This section explores how dual-use technologies blur the lines between combatants and civilians, leading to the rise of the "pseudo-combatant."
Monopolists of War. How PGMs promote increased warfare: This chapter analyzes how PGMs allow technically advanced nations to frame their military actions as righteous, potentially lowering the threshold for initiating conflict.
Conclusion: This final chapter synthesizes the findings, arguing that while PGMs protect soldiers, they dehumanize war and contribute to a dangerous trend of "push-button" conflict.
Keywords
Precision Guided Munitions, PGM, Revolution in Military Affairs, RMA, Asymmetrical Warfare, Jus in Bello, Civilian Discrimination, Military Ethics, Techno-fetishism, Collateral Damage, Surveillance, Military Technology, Just War Theory, Humanitarian Intervention, Push-button-war.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The research examines the ethical and sociopolitical implications of Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) and whether they have actually made modern warfare more humane.
What are the primary thematic areas?
Key themes include military technological advancement, the changing nature of combatant/non-combatant distinctions, the ethics of asymmetrical warfare, and the role of public perception in legitimizing military conflicts.
What is the central research question?
The primary question asks whether technological progress has truly improved the humanity of war, or if it has simply provided a rhetorical framework to justify increased military interventionism.
What methodology does the author use?
The author employs a critical analysis of military doctrine, international law concepts (Jus in Bello), and media framing, supported by existing security studies literature and system theory.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body investigates the technical accuracy of PGMs versus their perceived impact, the role of media in sanitizing war, the asymmetrical consequences for target nations, and the erosion of legal boundaries between civilian and military targets.
Which keywords best describe the paper?
Relevant keywords include Precision Guided Munitions, RMA, Asymmetrical Warfare, Jus in Bello, Collateral Damage, and Techno-fetishism.
What is meant by the term "costless war"?
It refers to the perception, often propagated by military leadership and media, that modern technology allows for striking targets without risking the lives of one's own soldiers or incurring significant political costs.
How do PGMs contribute to the "dehumanization" of war?
By creating a "push-button" environment where decision-makers are morally and physically distanced from the battlefield, the impact of the weapon is reduced to data and sanitized imagery, obscuring the human reality of the conflict.
What is the "myth of the surgical strike"?
It is the argument that PGM technology allows for perfect discrimination, which the author counters by citing technical failures, intelligence errors, and the persistent problem of uncertainty regarding civilian presence in target areas.
- Citation du texte
- Soren Andersen (Auteur), 2009, Has technological progress made war more humane?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/146959
