Assessing the technology of war

"Since you talk about ethics," a reader writes, "why haven't you written anything about the upcoming war?"

Free IT resource Hear how top CIOs turn change into a competitive advantage. Sponsored by HP Free IT resource TechNet: More ways to know it, share it, and keep it running. Sponsored by Microsoft

That's a good question. If ethics, and those who talk about ethics, don't concern themselves with matters of life and death, what's the point? And this reader isn't alone. I've asked myself the same question.

It would be silly to assume that I don't have a viewpoint, but as far as presenting it in this space, I have a problem. As I see it, my mandate in this column is to talk about ethics and technology, and to divert it into a pro-war or anti-war platform would take advantage of the opportunity I've been given. I've complained in the past about people who are given a platform for some secular reason and turn it into an opportunity to proselytize for their religious beliefs. So I should practice what I preach.

Although I do tackle some political issues, I'm always conscious of presenting the "technological hook" to the issue, such as when I discuss the government's current policies regarding the use of data mining to spy on its citizens. In discussing whether or not a war should be waged, there is no such "hook."

Also, I think that the country is now so sufficiently polarized over the war that there is no point in adding my voice to the cacophony arising from both of the poles. My experience has been that there are few, if any, people sitting on the fence. Most have already dug in on one side or the other, and the screaming has begun. Rational-sounding discussion seems to take place only among like-minded people on both sides of the issue.

But there is one technology "hook" that I will grab onto. I have serious ethical concerns about some of the technical weaponry that may be used in a war with Iraq . My concerns center on the vaunted EMP (electromagnetic pulse) bombs that have gained some notoriety of late.

Among the newest gadgets in the war maker's toy box, these bombs don't explode -- according to all reports -- but send out a massive electromagnetic pulse that fries all electronic circuits within their reach. Now, no such bomb has ever been tested in battle, and there are still some questions as to whether the United States has them available for use in the near future. Yet the possibility of using EMP bombs has been rumored and reported in the media.

The arguments in favor of such a bomb surround the fact that it doesn't -- as far as we know -- directly kill people, and it leaves buildings intact. In theory, once the opposition forces have been rendered powerless, U.S. forces would be able to sweep in and quickly restore a "normal life."

Although such a device would certainly achieve its goal of rendering the opposition helpless to conduct any type of war other than with sticks and stones, it could also have a tremendously devastating effect on civilians, depending on how it was used. If such a device, having a very limited range, was used against solely military targets, its use would probably present no grave ethical concerns -- accomplishing the goal of destroying military installations.

However, if the range were larger or if it were used in civilian areas, the damage would be almost incalculable. It's a bit glib to claim that the bomb is humane because it doesn't physically take lives. Loss of life would certainly follow if hospitals were unable to function or if water and sewage treatment plants were to fail as the result of an EMP detonation. There could be no communications, no electricity, and possibly no clean water available to civilians. Transportation could come to a halt. In a country whose population has already been devastated by 40 years of dictatorship, a decade of war, and a subsequent decade of crippling sanctions, this could be the death blow.

It is disingenuous to assume that because use of these weapons doesn't kill someone directly, we aren't responsible for later deaths that are directly or indirectly attributable to such actions.

The notion of sweeping in and restoring a "normal life" seems also to be a false promise. If our military forces completely destroy a country's electronic infrastructure, we will have effectively made them completely dependent on us for even the barest necessities of life, setting them up as a virtual vassal state. With computers, radios, televisions, automobiles, and public transportation gone, the defeated population will be living in an electronic "stone age."

The ongoing problem of technology and ethics is that we continue to develop and use technologies because we can -- and not necessarily because we've developed the ethical principles that should govern their use. Those who raise objections to such technology are accused of being Luddites. Eventually, plowing ahead without doing the necessary ethical homework, we may find we've gone so far down the road that we can't go back. Perhaps it's time to avoid this mistake with this particular technology.

The political fallout from using the EMP bombs would be tremendous as well. Because the United States positions itself as a world leader, our country's use of EMP bombs will in effect "give permission" to other countries to use them also. And it doesn't take much imagination to predict countries such as India and Pakistan using them against the other as a pre-emptive strike -- following our example -- because they believed the other country might attack them at some time in the future.

The causes of war and the technology of war are separate issues, but both are guided by the principles of a just war. The most common distinction of a "just war" requires, among other things, that the war be a response to an attack or an imminent attack, that a distinction be made between civilians and the military, and that the force used and damage done is proportionate to the good being achieved.

It's that proportionality that is called into question in the potential use of EMP weapons.