In this important new work, historian Sarah Bridger explores the ambivalent role of scientists in U.S. policy debates over national defense issues from the 1950s to the 1980s. This is a significant contribution to our understanding of the evolution of the scientific professions in the shadow of the national security state.
What comes to mind when we hear the word “drone”? For many of us, it is the image of a General Atomics MQ-1B Predator drone launching a Hellfire missile at a suspected militant target. But is this picture beginning to change? Should this picture change?
Frowe argues from the revisionist just war position, accepting that this is the correct interpretation of just war principles. This view misses something important about the realities of war and is simply too impractical to be applicable to the entire continuum of violence in the international realm.
The set of principles proposed by Brunstetter and Braun to comprise jus ad vim is redundant, and the project stems from a largely implausible understanding of the principles of jus ad bellum.
There is increasing speculation within military and policy circles that the future of armed conflict is likely to include extensive deployment of autonomous weapon systems. The ethical case for allowing autonomous targeting, at least in specific restricted domains, is stronger than critics have typically acknowledged—but such targeting still remains ethically problematic.
The international community should spell out the kinds of failures to protect civilians that can justify armed interventions by other states, and should establish a responsibility to prevent international terrorism.