TECHNOLOGY has not just had a powerful influence on everyday lives, it has also transformed warfare.
A country’s military no longer depends on manned aircraft to launch missiles in warzones, but can instead use drones which do not require pilots.
Armed drones can either be seen as an opportunity or a threat, but regardless of your perspective they also raise legal and ethical questions.
If a parliament approves air strikes as part of a military conflict, there seems little moral or practical difference between manned and unmanned aircraft.
The trickier aspect is recognising that many conflicts these days are not between countries or on conventional battlefields, but involve terror groups that operate across a variety of nations and continents.
If a terrorist is planning a strike on the UK in a country with whom we are not at war, are we justified in using a lethal drone strike?
As we reveal today, an MoD document made clear there was a “practice” of targeting terrorists outside of armed conflicts. The MoD insisted that the wording was a mistake and that there was no such policy.
However, given that the US already operates a laissez-faire drones policy in Pakistan and Yemen, it is not beyond the realms of possibility to imagine the UK edging in this direction. Such a practice is deeply worrying - as it is an effective global licence to kill. As such, the UK should immediately set out the circumstances in which lethal drone strikes can and cannot be used.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here