There Ought To Be An International Ban On The Military Use Of Drones

I am maintaining through this debate that Drones are cannot be deemed a hazard, and as such regulations to ban can be considered 'unreasonable'. At risk of being accused of sounding like a broken record - I would like to re-iterate that this is not my actual stance on this argument, however for the purposes of viewing other perspectives, I believe I have found an avenue to pursue to diversify our understanding, and perhaps open new insight on the matter. My current arguments center around the fact that War is inherently a destructive activity, and the change of the combatants in no way affects the current problems raised, as they have been valid since the first fight between two communities or factions. There are many stories of single 'war heroes' that successfully performed tasks originally percieved to be impossible, Some stories show single people or platoons holding off a critical point and 'beating the odds to achieve glory' - most result in their death, or serious disfigurement. [1] (I have raised this for a reason, however I will clarify in later rounds, This is to lay my arguments out)Travesties have been commited by invading parties - These are considered the unfortunate by-product of an invading army taking advantage of the turmoil, to sate personal drives. (This includes acts of Rape, Torture and theft/looting by invading troops) Armies that have specifically been sent to a location as peace keepers are still prone to this abuse of power. [2]Effectively, this debate in my opinion can be boiled down to - "We can never anticipate what a combatant can do, however the chances of a Human Combatent being 'evil' is much lower than the capacity a machine can have to be 'evil'". Or, If one soldier or leader is 'Evil" - then the other members of their army can incapacitate or overcome this internal breach of morality - or if an entire army is 'corrupted' - it can be wiped out, and that is the end of it. Current arguments against this stance are to say that "One person is all it requires to take control of the drones, thus impeaching on our security" - My Argument to this (Which I raise due to prior knowledge on the arguments on this topic) - Is that to ban something simply due to the fact that one person can cause damage, Is to Ban all concept of fighting as all it really takes is one person to do something, to do irrepairable damage. Currently my arguments have been 'defensive' - I will now list some 'Pro's' to support my stance :Morality :Machines do not have Morality, this is a known fact, and the complex algorythms required to simulate our morality is currently beyond us. The Negative side of this, is that machines will accept new information and orders without viewing the 'why'. The positive side, Is the fact that the travisties occured during war will not occur - Robots have no need to rape, pillage and plunder for personal gain, they will simply do what they are originally there to do (Be it attack enemies or support the civilians from 3rd party threats). Human Error:Univerally it is a fact that for all requests people make of each other, allowances have to be made for 'human error' this entails to pretty much any subject a Human is related in - It is expected that our calculations are given a margin of error, Driving you are not expected to maintain the speed limit perfectly (you may slow up and speed down and this is acceptable) - the reason for this is that Humans are susceptible to emotions, which can help or hinder our performance on the task (Some can call it 'getting the Yips"). Machines do not have this problem, unless it was programmed to do so, The fact that a machine can be presented with a split second decision, and not 'lock up' is incredibly useful in battlefield situations - Along with the fact that tactically, sometimes a leader must sacrifice a few troops to save many - In the past this was accepted as what was required at times, and some armies had units specifically dedicated for being these 'shock troops' that take the hits while everyone falls back (Vikings come to mind specifically for this, however I cannot think of a specific fight to reference here). With a machine, this tactic would only be considered an economical cost - Literally just the cost to make the machine is lost, no life. Performance :True that alot of the time Drones miss their targets, or inadvertantly accost civilians (E. g. Bombing raid gone wrong, or miss-information causing an attack at the wrong location) - However the majority of the time, they are accurate - they utilise maths, physics and a million other processes to ensure accuracy to their shots, and time will build this into a higher accuracy - and a decrease in 'misses' which result in civilian casualties. With regards to the points you raised, I will address them in the next round - as per the Debate format you have created. Sources : [1] : . http://www.history.com...http://listverse.com...;[2] : (Sources are specifically around UN peace keeping troops - to show that even forces sent for the sole purpose to help the population, still abuse the power - other instances are implied, however this sufficiently proves the point, and leaves the reader to the logical step of Armies not specifically dedicated to the assistance of Civilians are even more likely to commit such acts). . http://www.theguardian.com...http://www.telegraph.co.uk...http://www.news.com.au...