by Ethics Newsline contributor Ed Collins

Events, developments, and inventions that make an inordinately large impact on how things are done are referred to as game changers. When game changers occur, rule changes usually follow — the forward pass in football, the U.S. Civil War in politics, poison gas in warfare.

Today, technology is the mother of game changers. It is altering the landscape of current events at a geometrically escalating rate — nowhere more so than the arena of modern warfare. News from the past few months bears this out: Software “weapons” designed to scramble nuclear design codes are interrupting Iran’s nuclear development program; ground-based robots are undertaking tactical surveillance too dangerous for front-line soldiers; and drones are flying over enemy positions, providing intelligence regarding weapons and the movements of enemy combatants. (Today those “observation” drones have been equipped with weaponry to “surgically” kill specific enemy personnel.)

The use of drones as weapons in the war against terrorism is an enormous game changer. Drone kills have increased dramatically over the last two years in the U.S. war against terrorists, to the point where President Obama has inserted himself into the decision as to whether to use drones to kill certain identified terrorists, and House and Senate Intelligence Committee staffers regularly review videos of drone kills, ostensibly to ensure that they are being conducted correctly.

With the United States being the target in a “war’” conducted by non-uniformed combatants — terrorists who themselves use passenger planes full of civilians as weapons of mass destruction — a central ethical question emerges: Are we justified in using drones to remotely kill an enemy? And what if some of these kills involve the death of innocent civilians as “collateral damage”? What are the rules here?

The straight answer is that there aren’t any rules. In addition, there seems to be something of a reluctance to face up to establishing any such rules — a hesitation to disturb the status quo.

Seeing how difficult these drone-kill calls are for the United States, some might argue that perhaps the status quo is best left undisturbed. On the other hand, perhaps we ignore formal controls for this game changer at our peril. Those ordering drone kills might be held responsible in international court, for example. And if international control laws are created, there exists always the Law of Unintended Consequences. We simply cannot predict the ramifications of any attempt to control remote-control war, and attempts to regulate it could complicate the already delicate relations among nations.

At present, the United States is using the tools we have at hand — including drones and cyber-attacks — in our attempt to fight back against terrorists. But are the tools we’re using moral and ethical? And does it matter given that the stakes in terms of U.S. civilian lives are as high as they are? Does the end justify the means? If so, who decides what course of action is justifiable and appropriate?

While these questions remain on the table, U.S. drones continue to target identified terrorists. No rules of war restrict them; no international laws impede them. While few would deny that this present freedom to eliminate the leaders of terrorist groups has been an effective deterrent, perhaps even fewer would welcome any future restriction on the ability to defend our civilian population from terrorist acts.

The Geneva Conventions first were used following World War I to outlaw the use of poison gas among other restrictions. Their most recent expansion — the Fourth Geneva Convention — sought to provide further protection of civilians during battles between combatants, which bears on all decisions about using drones to target terrorists in the midst of innocents.

A central ethical question evolving from this discussion is whether it is worthwhile to attempt an update in the content or application of the Geneva Conventions. No one really believes that any terrorist group would themselves abide by rules or laws established by a Geneva Convention. But international agreements by signatory nations on the acceptable conduct of such acts — “the ethics of war” — could provide some agreement as to what is permissible under the extenuating circumstances of waging war against terrorists.

While there are many who hold that international law and the Geneva Conventions have no teeth, international law long has been effectively operational on the high seas. The Nuremberg Trials successfully prosecuted Axis war criminals following World War II, and as recently as 10 years ago, the first permanent war crimes tribunal, the International Crime Court, was established. War criminals have been prosecuted (and punished) successfully by this body for genocide and other crimes.

War always has involved civilian casualties. Terrorism, however, by definition targets civilians rather than military personnel for the specific purpose of creating terror among the civilian population. As such, it is both a crime and an act of war.

The defensive response methods used by the United States — or any country that has been targeted in terrorist attacks for that matter — are typically warlike responses involving the killing of those identified as the attackers. Regretfully, sometimes innocent civilians are in the area of those targets. To complicate matters, terrorists routinely use women and children as human shields.

We are at the point, I believe, where technology is poised to outrun our ability to employ it within at least a general moral framework. There ought to be some internationally agreed-upon definitions as to what are considered ethically and morally acceptable methods of response to terrorist acts, including how drone technology and cyber-warfare may be utilized, and to what extent those methods may be employed by a civilized nation when that nation is forced to defend its civilian population against terrorists.

©2012 Institute for Global Ethics

Ed Collins is a retired western Pennsylvania marketing communications consultant who writes essays, poetry, and humor.