Drones Are Ethical And Effective | Kenneth Anderson | Oxford Union

Kenneth Anderson gives his argument for the use of drone warfare.
SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Facebook @ theoxfordunion
Twitter @ / oxfordunion
Oxford Union Website @ www.oxford-union.org/
Kenneth Anderson begins by saying his first task in the human rights business was directing the landmines campaign back in 1990. Landmines are very indiscriminate weapons and he campaigned to military weapon designers to come up with more discriminating weapons. At the time the most accurate weapon in the American military was a tomahawk cruise missile whose pinpoint capabilities were being able to blow up a whole building. Compared to these levels of accuracy Kenneth says that we should be thanking military designers for making weapons with better targeting capabilities.
Drones are different from other systems in that they provide a longer loiter time but in regards to just pressing a button and destroying a village, that view is too simplistic as decisions go through many layers of authority before the choice is made.
He argues the point that drones make it too easy to use force is null and void as the amount of force used depends on the justice of the cause that ones fighting. He concludes by saying we should look at the broader picture of how weapons have evolved in accuracy of the last 20 years rather than the way they are operated today.
Filmed on Thursday 25th April 2013
MOTION: THIS HOUSE BELIEVES DRONE WARFARE IS ETHICAL AND EFFECTIVE
ABOUT KENNETH ANDERSON:
Kenneth Anderson is a law professor at Washington College of Law, American University, a research fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, a Non-Resident Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a blogger. Anderson was the legal editor of Crimes of War, a book about international humanitarian law (W.W. Norton, 1999). He is a member of the International Council of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY:
The Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 189 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.

[@trumanhw]

5/6 comments here are stupid. Kenneth is clearly well versed in philosophy and critical thinking.
Like all things... if you reject a method, please provide a better one. Shall the U.S. occupy Afghanistan and Pakistan? Indefinitely? Instead of trying to kill only the those who're opposing forces?
Look at the civilian casualty ratio in Iraq... vs. Pakistan from drones. Then make the argument as to which method you want. Pacifism isn't one of the options.

[@Rawr029]

5:22ish lecturer states something like: "Too easy in war is simply a reflection of the justice of the cause you are fighting.."
Where this argument belongs: Late Republican era Rome.
Let me be clear: (ever play the POTUS drinking game? Its awesome.)
-Drone strikes are fair. They are the tool best suited to the current situation.
-Drone strikes in this current context. A Chinese guy thousands of years ago once said quality over quantity. He had a point.
-Everyone is right. Now take that swallow it and produce less drones strikes quieter.
-Use a different munition. Baby hellfire? I think the Brits make one?
-Landmines (honorary mention) we don't like em' they're bad. Moral argument. If I had to fight a battle in a 360 degree engagement area with limited intelligence... what would I do.... I'd break out my pocketbook on the morality of losing.
-Why comment on landmines? Think defending your flank in a desert is bad against mechanized forces on 360 degrees? Think of trying to defend a chic Starbucksesque coffeeshop in upper Manhattan against a non-room temp IQ aggressor who is committed.. if we really tick people off? What is the equivalent in this engagement paradigm of a landmine? Oh, wait... you've got the choke point? The isthmus of Custom?! Oh, right! Nothing gets through there..... ever.... right....
This guy's argument is horrid. Statements like this are great for generating more targets for future drones. He doesn't seem stupid. Maybe he is exhausted? Or being deliberately obtuse.
This must be the "Drone Strikes for Dummies" seminar.
Well she has a few points. These points are leveraged by her cuteness. That said, let me be clear. (remember the drinking game... you need a ''clear'' shot) I'm actually immune to cuteness in intellectual matters to the best of my knowledge, but I recognize others are not.
So, lessons learned? We now know what a drone strike is and are now familiar with the basic moral arguments and some very topical strategic concerns.
No points of leverage have been discussed thus far this series seems extremely topical.
Should've just listened to more Trapstep or Chomsky while I hunt in fantasyland.

[@ahmmedsultana4498]

It's current

[@NeoConNET7]

An excellent defense on the use of drones. They are effective, and they are efficient.

[@sqgl]

Not as "effective" as we are led to believe. "Larry Lewis of the Center for Naval Analyses says he found that remote-controlled drones caused 10 times more civilian casualties than piloted warplanes over the course of one year in Afghanistan. Lewis says his findings are based on classified military files covering mid-2010 to mid-2011, the most intense period for U.S. air strikes during the Afghan war"

[@NeoConNET7]

Yes, they are. How many Taliban & Al Qaeda leaders have been killed by Drones? Hundreds.