What do you think?
Rate this book
Drone Theory
Drone Theory is Gregoire Chamayou's poignant and sharply argued polemic against US drone warfare.
In 2011 alone, the US deployed one drone strike every four days in Pakistan. Drone Theory is a rigorous polemic against the increasing use of robot warfare around the world. Drawing on philosophical debate, moral lessons from Greek mythology and transcripts of conversations between drone operators, Drone Theory re-evaluates the socio-political impact of drone warfare on the world - and its people. Chamayou takes us through Nevada, Pakistan and arresting philosophical terrain to reveal how drones are changing the landscape of war theory and to highlight the profound moral implications of our own silence in the face of drone warfare.
Born in 1976, Grégoire Chamayou is a philosopher at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in Paris and the author of Les corps vils and A Philosophical History. Chamayou also lectures at Université de Paris Ouest, and has written for Le Monde Diplomatique among other publications.
Janet Lloyd has translated over seventy books from French to English and has twice been awarded the Scott Moncrieff prize.
In 2011 alone, the US deployed one drone strike every four days in Pakistan. Drone Theory is a rigorous polemic against the increasing use of robot warfare around the world. Drawing on philosophical debate, moral lessons from Greek mythology and transcripts of conversations between drone operators, Drone Theory re-evaluates the socio-political impact of drone warfare on the world - and its people. Chamayou takes us through Nevada, Pakistan and arresting philosophical terrain to reveal how drones are changing the landscape of war theory and to highlight the profound moral implications of our own silence in the face of drone warfare.
Born in 1976, Grégoire Chamayou is a philosopher at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in Paris and the author of Les corps vils and A Philosophical History. Chamayou also lectures at Université de Paris Ouest, and has written for Le Monde Diplomatique among other publications.
Janet Lloyd has translated over seventy books from French to English and has twice been awarded the Scott Moncrieff prize.
269 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 24, 2013
80 people are currently reading
1864 people want to read
About the author
Grégoire Chamayou
17 books48 followersGrégoire Chamayou is a research scholar in philosophy at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in Paris. The author of Manhunts: A Philosophical History, he lives in Paris.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews
February 11, 2020
If it is true that weapons constitute the essence of combatants, what is the essence of those who fight using drones?
Two years running, I have been swept along and often befuddled by a stream of theory texts. Scratching my head, I have attempted vainly to stay abreast on communication, virtual presence and what we talk about when we talk about work. Nowhere in my stumbling have I been as shocked as I was within this text. About 1000 years ago I bathed in news. My wife was so proud that I read The Guardian for about a hour every morning before work. This simply doesn't happen anymore. Fatigue, cynicism and a keen desire to read (literature, theory, poetry rather than journalism) for me have elbowed that commitment aside.
Yes, I admitting that I was only paying half-attention to a foreign policy which chose to prosecute its War on Terror (WOT) by incinerating its opponents rather than by imprisoning and torturing them. I remember reports on NPR about such. Is it possible to formulate a reaction? Would an attempt possibly be honest or - more remotely- truthful. One reviwer of this book said the argument deserved a Camus, not a Derrida. I resent that.
Then suddenly I had this book and I was ill prepared for such clear distinction about how drones are not conducting military operations as much as they man-hunting. By blowing up people and things below without controlling the ground narrative, the WOT is in fact completely opposed to the principles of counter-insurgency. Should we mention how we violate sovereign nations to achieve these targeted assassinations? Kill Lists cloud the issues where drones are regarded and defended as precise and humane: no, I'm not making that shit up. Those are the standard terms in the argument. So Hellfire missiles are lauded as precise, as compared to what? The humane aspect is something else. I'm speechless. This isn't the time nor place but I am left pondering the technological curve and the naked lunch of Imperialism.
Two years running, I have been swept along and often befuddled by a stream of theory texts. Scratching my head, I have attempted vainly to stay abreast on communication, virtual presence and what we talk about when we talk about work. Nowhere in my stumbling have I been as shocked as I was within this text. About 1000 years ago I bathed in news. My wife was so proud that I read The Guardian for about a hour every morning before work. This simply doesn't happen anymore. Fatigue, cynicism and a keen desire to read (literature, theory, poetry rather than journalism) for me have elbowed that commitment aside.
Yes, I admitting that I was only paying half-attention to a foreign policy which chose to prosecute its War on Terror (WOT) by incinerating its opponents rather than by imprisoning and torturing them. I remember reports on NPR about such. Is it possible to formulate a reaction? Would an attempt possibly be honest or - more remotely- truthful. One reviwer of this book said the argument deserved a Camus, not a Derrida. I resent that.
Then suddenly I had this book and I was ill prepared for such clear distinction about how drones are not conducting military operations as much as they man-hunting. By blowing up people and things below without controlling the ground narrative, the WOT is in fact completely opposed to the principles of counter-insurgency. Should we mention how we violate sovereign nations to achieve these targeted assassinations? Kill Lists cloud the issues where drones are regarded and defended as precise and humane: no, I'm not making that shit up. Those are the standard terms in the argument. So Hellfire missiles are lauded as precise, as compared to what? The humane aspect is something else. I'm speechless. This isn't the time nor place but I am left pondering the technological curve and the naked lunch of Imperialism.
January 22, 2015
A darkly humorous and insightful book on the rise of drones and their philosophical implications. Consisting of short, concise chapters the depravity of drone warfare is laid bare in painstaking detail and from all possible angles. Highly recommended.
March 11, 2016
This book is comprehensive, clear, and as straight forward and well articulated as any "applied" philosophy book can be.
Gregoire Chamayou isn't a neutral observer, his position is clear and his commitment to it is undivided. He is against any military use of drones as they are being used today, the reapers throwing hellfire missiles at expected combatants, killing civilians, and eliminating any chance of due process.
However, this book is not a bunch of heuristic dogma against drones. It is a meticulous study that goes into multiple aspects of their existence, use, and justification and systematically demolishes any way those can be supported.
He goes first into understanding the weapon which I found fascinating. The analysis is not entirely technical but it address the characteristics of the weapon in a way that allows us to understand how is it used.
Then he goes to explain how that transforms war from a combat to a hunt and what are the rules of the game in this case. From there, Chamayou explores the pro and con arguments on several levels from the strategic to the tactical and from the ethical to the political.
I have never thought before reading this book that drones are a legitimate weapon. After reading it, I have a clearer understanding about their failures both to achieve their tactical aims and to be legal, ethical, or acceptable in any other way.
Highly recommended.
Gregoire Chamayou isn't a neutral observer, his position is clear and his commitment to it is undivided. He is against any military use of drones as they are being used today, the reapers throwing hellfire missiles at expected combatants, killing civilians, and eliminating any chance of due process.
However, this book is not a bunch of heuristic dogma against drones. It is a meticulous study that goes into multiple aspects of their existence, use, and justification and systematically demolishes any way those can be supported.
He goes first into understanding the weapon which I found fascinating. The analysis is not entirely technical but it address the characteristics of the weapon in a way that allows us to understand how is it used.
Then he goes to explain how that transforms war from a combat to a hunt and what are the rules of the game in this case. From there, Chamayou explores the pro and con arguments on several levels from the strategic to the tactical and from the ethical to the political.
I have never thought before reading this book that drones are a legitimate weapon. After reading it, I have a clearer understanding about their failures both to achieve their tactical aims and to be legal, ethical, or acceptable in any other way.
Highly recommended.
December 12, 2021
if you like this review i now have website: www.michaelkamakana.com
190716: politics as war, war as assassination, assassination as a real cool computer game. of course, it would take a french philosopher to suggest we are losing our humanity by denying the humanity of our enemies. this is a useful book whenever news channels triumphantly proclaim some grouping of militants/terrorists/bad guys are killed...(then we learn they were wedding guests)...
190716: politics as war, war as assassination, assassination as a real cool computer game. of course, it would take a french philosopher to suggest we are losing our humanity by denying the humanity of our enemies. this is a useful book whenever news channels triumphantly proclaim some grouping of militants/terrorists/bad guys are killed...(then we learn they were wedding guests)...
September 13, 2024
Met elk politiek boek wordt er een nieuw aspect van onze dystopische realiteit ontsloten, maar Chamayou doet het omgekeerde. Hij ontsluit de dystopie vanuit het symptoom. De drone als monade.
September 3, 2020
Clear, crisp writing. Chamayou brings a lot of depth depth and clarity to common-sense arguments, as well as novel principled arguments against evolving technology in the new wars of 21st century. For a highly technical (and perhaps depressing!) subject matter, it was a pleasure to read. There's also a lot of subtle sass in Chamayou's questioning of baseless/deceptive American optimism regarding the legality of drone usage in these so-called wars, so ya - wonderful job by Janet Lloyd in translating the work.
April 6, 2015
an excellent attack on drone use and its legitimation apparatus! (a deeper understanding of colonial violence would have strengthened some chapters but what he offers here already serves certain functions pretty well)
August 28, 2023
This one took me through the mill. I don’t think I’ve ever had such a turbulent relationship with a text before. By page 100, I was fully ready to file the book under “bin” and write the author off as a pompous arsehole. On page 170, I had to admit that Chamayou was right and that my own prejudice had blocked me from accepting it.
I’m not sure what it is about French philosophers, but the limited number I’ve encountered so far seem to make an art of burying meagre helpings of highly valuable information amongst piles of wordy garbage. During the course of this book, I’ve tried to reframe that into an approach called “high fibre literacy” - you’ve got to do an awful lot of chewing before you get to swallow anything of nutritional value, but ultimately, it’s better for you than processed alternatives.
The polemical nature of this book significantly rubbed up against my own experiences. In Kosovo, I was deployed as part of the NATO force (KFOR) living with, and working in direct support of the RAF Regiment TAC-P guys whose job it was to shine laser lights on targets for both manned and UAV airstrikes. Reading descriptions of UAV operations as cowards didn’t exactly sit well.
Chamayou pissed me off because his one-sided rant fails to take into account just how much the nature of armed conflict has changed. The author might well long for a long lost chivalrous approach to the laws of armed conflict, but he makes no allowance for the fact that isometric warfare started before the west’s approach to the nature of war adapted to accommodate those changes. I fully support the notion that western drone strikes lead to civilian casualties, but there is a fundamental difference in approach. Where the western officer views the battle space and says “oh no - civilians around the target”, the insurgent categorises civilians as targets and waits for more to congregate before taking his shot.
Similarly, while I accept that it’s difficult for a “cowardly” western drone operator to recognise the difference between a combatant and a civilian, he completely chooses to overlook the fact that modern insurgents don’t choose to (bravely) identify themselves. It’s difficult to wage war justly when your enemy won’t stand up to be counted; just as it’s impossible to talk about “cowardly” drone attacks without acknowledging the enemy’s chosen method of fighting is also risk-free and indiscriminate- via the roadside bomb.
But it’s only once I got past these objections that I began to understand the whole argument. For me it was the recognition that the western idea of conflict has moved away from total war and into global policing. From there, the author did a fine job of dismantling my conceptions of proportionality and the right to use lethal force to completely revise my moral outlook.
I would now take this argument further. I think, as we contemplate a future of autonomous lethal vehicles, we need to seriously (and rather urgently) discuss the ethics of combat when automation removes the reciprocity of risk (the idea that killing in war is justified because both parties face the same threat). Once a nation state is able to minimise public opposition by throwing robots (not our sons and daughters) into the battlespace, what reason does a population have to object to the cost of war? And if that happens, how will it ever stop?
I’m not sure what it is about French philosophers, but the limited number I’ve encountered so far seem to make an art of burying meagre helpings of highly valuable information amongst piles of wordy garbage. During the course of this book, I’ve tried to reframe that into an approach called “high fibre literacy” - you’ve got to do an awful lot of chewing before you get to swallow anything of nutritional value, but ultimately, it’s better for you than processed alternatives.
The polemical nature of this book significantly rubbed up against my own experiences. In Kosovo, I was deployed as part of the NATO force (KFOR) living with, and working in direct support of the RAF Regiment TAC-P guys whose job it was to shine laser lights on targets for both manned and UAV airstrikes. Reading descriptions of UAV operations as cowards didn’t exactly sit well.
Chamayou pissed me off because his one-sided rant fails to take into account just how much the nature of armed conflict has changed. The author might well long for a long lost chivalrous approach to the laws of armed conflict, but he makes no allowance for the fact that isometric warfare started before the west’s approach to the nature of war adapted to accommodate those changes. I fully support the notion that western drone strikes lead to civilian casualties, but there is a fundamental difference in approach. Where the western officer views the battle space and says “oh no - civilians around the target”, the insurgent categorises civilians as targets and waits for more to congregate before taking his shot.
Similarly, while I accept that it’s difficult for a “cowardly” western drone operator to recognise the difference between a combatant and a civilian, he completely chooses to overlook the fact that modern insurgents don’t choose to (bravely) identify themselves. It’s difficult to wage war justly when your enemy won’t stand up to be counted; just as it’s impossible to talk about “cowardly” drone attacks without acknowledging the enemy’s chosen method of fighting is also risk-free and indiscriminate- via the roadside bomb.
But it’s only once I got past these objections that I began to understand the whole argument. For me it was the recognition that the western idea of conflict has moved away from total war and into global policing. From there, the author did a fine job of dismantling my conceptions of proportionality and the right to use lethal force to completely revise my moral outlook.
I would now take this argument further. I think, as we contemplate a future of autonomous lethal vehicles, we need to seriously (and rather urgently) discuss the ethics of combat when automation removes the reciprocity of risk (the idea that killing in war is justified because both parties face the same threat). Once a nation state is able to minimise public opposition by throwing robots (not our sons and daughters) into the battlespace, what reason does a population have to object to the cost of war? And if that happens, how will it ever stop?
September 2, 2021
Really interesting read about the moral and philosophical implications of drone warfare.
In fact, Chamayou makes the case that calling it warfare is a bit of a misnomer. Due to the sheer asymmetry of vulnerability between pilots and targets, the term 'hunt' is probably more fitting. Following 9/11, the world became the battleground for a global 'war on terror' where the US took unilateral action to assassinate anyone it suspected of being a terrorist. Indeed, a huge number of American drone strikes took place in countries the US wasn't formally at war with or where any sort of mass conflict was actually taking place.
What was quite eye-opening was that strikes often take place with the flimsiest of evidence. Intelligence agencies don't select targets on the basis on who they actually are. Instead, mass surveillance of SIM cards and phone networks build profiles of people whose behaviour matches that of a model terrorist. If you're a sociable Pakistani man with a pick-up truck, you might get bombed by people half the world away who don't even know your name.
Chamayou rightly argues that the consequences of the dronization of the military won’t just impact the enemies of states but also their own citizens. Riffing on Hobbes, Chamayou makes the case that drone technology will allow the state to shed its dependency on the support of citizens and become a fully automatic, artificial machine.
But that's just a theory...
A drone theory. Thanks for watching!
In fact, Chamayou makes the case that calling it warfare is a bit of a misnomer. Due to the sheer asymmetry of vulnerability between pilots and targets, the term 'hunt' is probably more fitting. Following 9/11, the world became the battleground for a global 'war on terror' where the US took unilateral action to assassinate anyone it suspected of being a terrorist. Indeed, a huge number of American drone strikes took place in countries the US wasn't formally at war with or where any sort of mass conflict was actually taking place.
What was quite eye-opening was that strikes often take place with the flimsiest of evidence. Intelligence agencies don't select targets on the basis on who they actually are. Instead, mass surveillance of SIM cards and phone networks build profiles of people whose behaviour matches that of a model terrorist. If you're a sociable Pakistani man with a pick-up truck, you might get bombed by people half the world away who don't even know your name.
Chamayou rightly argues that the consequences of the dronization of the military won’t just impact the enemies of states but also their own citizens. Riffing on Hobbes, Chamayou makes the case that drone technology will allow the state to shed its dependency on the support of citizens and become a fully automatic, artificial machine.
But that's just a theory...
A drone theory. Thanks for watching!
January 15, 2023
The saying goes “a wise man will listen to a fool; a fool will listen to no one,” and I’m left unsure if Chamayou is wise or a fool.
His thesis centers on the idea that uncrewed aircraft put the US on the wrong side of a moral dilemma. Without vulnerability, in so-called risk-less war, remote pilots breach the rules of warfare and just war. Further, Chamayou asserts, while other war fighting technology marched towards this dilemma (e.g machine guns and missiles) the uncrewed “hunter-killer” reached the absolute limit of asymmetry bringing a host of political dangers.
While it’s a thought provoking idea, and I appreciate hearing a non-US perspective, Chamayou’s writing tends towards biased pundit more than reasoned persuasion. He says himself in the introduction, “[the book’s] objective is to provide discursive weapons for the use of those men and women who wish to oppose policy served by drones.”
While I enjoyed the anecdotes and substantial citations, I found the 2013 writing a fixated polemic against counter terrorism that lacks staying power just 9 years later.
For those interested in Chamayou’s discussion points, I recommend Neil Renic’s 2020 book “Asymmetric Killing: Risk Avoidance, Just War, and the Warrior Ethos” for a more fully developed and historically backed theory.
His thesis centers on the idea that uncrewed aircraft put the US on the wrong side of a moral dilemma. Without vulnerability, in so-called risk-less war, remote pilots breach the rules of warfare and just war. Further, Chamayou asserts, while other war fighting technology marched towards this dilemma (e.g machine guns and missiles) the uncrewed “hunter-killer” reached the absolute limit of asymmetry bringing a host of political dangers.
While it’s a thought provoking idea, and I appreciate hearing a non-US perspective, Chamayou’s writing tends towards biased pundit more than reasoned persuasion. He says himself in the introduction, “[the book’s] objective is to provide discursive weapons for the use of those men and women who wish to oppose policy served by drones.”
While I enjoyed the anecdotes and substantial citations, I found the 2013 writing a fixated polemic against counter terrorism that lacks staying power just 9 years later.
For those interested in Chamayou’s discussion points, I recommend Neil Renic’s 2020 book “Asymmetric Killing: Risk Avoidance, Just War, and the Warrior Ethos” for a more fully developed and historically backed theory.
February 16, 2018
Grégoire Chamayou nous présente dans cet ouvrage une analyse approfondie de la drone en tant qu'une arme de guerre qui a changé la vision des soldats ainsi que les stratégies de ceux qui détiennent le pouvoir.
Read
June 27, 2018it was very good. i recommend!
January 17, 2023
Drone Theory by Grégoire Chamayou
Book 3/60 of 2023
An excellent read that summarised a lot of my already existing opinions on modern warfare. Terrifying and true.
Book 3/60 of 2023
An excellent read that summarised a lot of my already existing opinions on modern warfare. Terrifying and true.
April 12, 2020
Le livre est une analyse complète du drone, c'est à dire une analyse économique, historique, sociale et philosophique d'un niveau stratosphérique, je m'y attendais pas et il est dans mon top 10 de livres que je préfère.
Concrètement, l'invention du drone est l'une des inventions les plus graves de l'histoire de l'Humanité. Pourquoi ? Pour commencer, le drone induit une asymétrie entre les combattants. La loi de la guerre se base sur un fait à peu près logique, c'est à dire que l'on peut tuer quand on risque d'être tué, c'est la légitime défense mais appliquée au champ de la guerre. Or, avec le drone, la personne qui le possède est invulnérable du point de vue humain. Et ça change absolument tout en terme de gestion de la guerre car pour les "ennemis", il y a une injustice ressentie, quasiment divine, au fait de voir la violence se déchaîner sans pouvoir y mettre fin.
On pourrait se dire "oh bah c'est pas grave, ce sont des ennemis" sauf que non, car le drone, et les dégâts monstrueux qu'il inflige (d'ailleurs, le fait de dire que c'est une arme précise, c'est un mensonge, car le drone est comparé à des armes de bombardement pour dire que c'est plus précis ; ce serait comme dire qu'une guillotine est plus précise qu'une bombe nucléaire, c'est vrai mais ça exclut une partie essentielle du sujet) fait que l'on induit une radicalisation des populations ciblées au profit des groupes terroristes. D'ailleurs, la méthodologie autour du décompte des victimes fait que l'on compte un mort comme un terroriste jusqu'à preuve de son innocence, pour des pays qui érigent la présomption d'innocence comme valeur cardinale, c'est marrant.
Chamayou utilise le concept de la République de Kant et la loi de l'offre et de la demande pour illustrer le problème lié au drone. Selon Kant, la République (ou de démocratie pour utiliser un terme plus adéquat à nos définitions actuelles) est la forme de société qui génère le plus de paix, pourquoi ? Car si les décisions sont prises collectivement, en tant que somme des intérêts individuels (et que personne n'a d'intérêt à être potentiellement tué pendant un conflit armé), la guerre devrait disparaitre. Là où la centralisation du pouvoir autour d'un groupe d'individus (démocratie représentative) ou d'un seul (monarchie) ne peut que générer des conflits car les preneurs de décisions peuvent externaliser les coûts de la guerre sur leur population. Sauf que le drone est une arme low cost, elle coûte peu cher à produire et ne met aucune vie humaine en jeu du côté de la personne qui l'utilise. Or, quand le coût de quelque chose baisse, la demande augmente en théorie. Du coup, même dans une République, vu que les drones permettent de faire la guerre sans risquer sa vie, faire la guerre devient envisageable.
D'un point de vue historique, c'est intéressant de voir que le drone a été critiqué en priorité par les militaires eux même, pourquoi ? Parce qu'ils acceptaient pas d'être comparés à des personnes qui prennent pas de risque car "eux ils prennent des vrais risques de mourir", donc un discours très viriliste et concentré sur la figure du héro.
D'un point de vue anthropologique, le drone perturbe notre conception du meurtre. En effet, Chamayou cite le psychologue Grossman qui a élaboré le concept de "spectre de l'agression" qui explique que plus on est proche de sa cible, plus il est difficile de la tuer car, plus que l'acte en lui même, ce qui est dur à supporter, c'est de voir dans les yeux de son ennemi le fait qu'il nous juge en tant qu'assassin. Nous sommes des animaux sociaux jusqu'au bout. Ainsi, le drone se positionne d'une manière particulière, car il diminue les distances mais sans rendre le meurtre plus difficile justement car le tueur n'est pas vu par la cible.
Je vais m'arrêter là pour ce livre, mais je pourrais en parler pendant des heures, c'est l'un des livres les plus intéressants que j'ai pu lire. Il est plutôt long (279 pages) mais chaque page les vaut. Il est disponible gratuitement sur le site de La Fabrique pendant le confinement, lisez le.
Concrètement, l'invention du drone est l'une des inventions les plus graves de l'histoire de l'Humanité. Pourquoi ? Pour commencer, le drone induit une asymétrie entre les combattants. La loi de la guerre se base sur un fait à peu près logique, c'est à dire que l'on peut tuer quand on risque d'être tué, c'est la légitime défense mais appliquée au champ de la guerre. Or, avec le drone, la personne qui le possède est invulnérable du point de vue humain. Et ça change absolument tout en terme de gestion de la guerre car pour les "ennemis", il y a une injustice ressentie, quasiment divine, au fait de voir la violence se déchaîner sans pouvoir y mettre fin.
On pourrait se dire "oh bah c'est pas grave, ce sont des ennemis" sauf que non, car le drone, et les dégâts monstrueux qu'il inflige (d'ailleurs, le fait de dire que c'est une arme précise, c'est un mensonge, car le drone est comparé à des armes de bombardement pour dire que c'est plus précis ; ce serait comme dire qu'une guillotine est plus précise qu'une bombe nucléaire, c'est vrai mais ça exclut une partie essentielle du sujet) fait que l'on induit une radicalisation des populations ciblées au profit des groupes terroristes. D'ailleurs, la méthodologie autour du décompte des victimes fait que l'on compte un mort comme un terroriste jusqu'à preuve de son innocence, pour des pays qui érigent la présomption d'innocence comme valeur cardinale, c'est marrant.
Chamayou utilise le concept de la République de Kant et la loi de l'offre et de la demande pour illustrer le problème lié au drone. Selon Kant, la République (ou de démocratie pour utiliser un terme plus adéquat à nos définitions actuelles) est la forme de société qui génère le plus de paix, pourquoi ? Car si les décisions sont prises collectivement, en tant que somme des intérêts individuels (et que personne n'a d'intérêt à être potentiellement tué pendant un conflit armé), la guerre devrait disparaitre. Là où la centralisation du pouvoir autour d'un groupe d'individus (démocratie représentative) ou d'un seul (monarchie) ne peut que générer des conflits car les preneurs de décisions peuvent externaliser les coûts de la guerre sur leur population. Sauf que le drone est une arme low cost, elle coûte peu cher à produire et ne met aucune vie humaine en jeu du côté de la personne qui l'utilise. Or, quand le coût de quelque chose baisse, la demande augmente en théorie. Du coup, même dans une République, vu que les drones permettent de faire la guerre sans risquer sa vie, faire la guerre devient envisageable.
D'un point de vue historique, c'est intéressant de voir que le drone a été critiqué en priorité par les militaires eux même, pourquoi ? Parce qu'ils acceptaient pas d'être comparés à des personnes qui prennent pas de risque car "eux ils prennent des vrais risques de mourir", donc un discours très viriliste et concentré sur la figure du héro.
D'un point de vue anthropologique, le drone perturbe notre conception du meurtre. En effet, Chamayou cite le psychologue Grossman qui a élaboré le concept de "spectre de l'agression" qui explique que plus on est proche de sa cible, plus il est difficile de la tuer car, plus que l'acte en lui même, ce qui est dur à supporter, c'est de voir dans les yeux de son ennemi le fait qu'il nous juge en tant qu'assassin. Nous sommes des animaux sociaux jusqu'au bout. Ainsi, le drone se positionne d'une manière particulière, car il diminue les distances mais sans rendre le meurtre plus difficile justement car le tueur n'est pas vu par la cible.
Je vais m'arrêter là pour ce livre, mais je pourrais en parler pendant des heures, c'est l'un des livres les plus intéressants que j'ai pu lire. Il est plutôt long (279 pages) mais chaque page les vaut. Il est disponible gratuitement sur le site de La Fabrique pendant le confinement, lisez le.
May 27, 2016
A while back, I reviewed, Medea Benjamin's book; at the time, the most slanted and biased text I thought I had read to date. Unfortunately when it rains it pours. This recent edition from Chamayou actually started out quite promising, but then rapidly degraded and slid downhill to become a vociferous condemnation of those fighting the war against terror. Perhaps the most distressing and disappointing aspect of the book are the absolute depths to which Chamayou allows himself to sink. He paints with a very wide brush and liberally resorts to the distribution of mudslinging epithets. There is a spewing forth of ad hominem attacks, while selectively using the sources of others to support his extreme pacifist position. The "author" thus, discredits himself eternally as a serious academic worthy of consideration and merely comes off rather as a poor pundit for the distressed left of the political spectrum. This poorly constructed diatribe attempts to be Machiavellian in its approach from an individual whose most life threatening challenge was no doubt faced on a handball court in Geneva. From around page 100, the text begins to slide down the slippery slope and then increasingly gains speed as it diabolically slithers its way forward with one jibe and insult compounding another and very little information of concrete value. Even the most ardent pacifist should be revolted at this glib use of hearsay and selectively manipulated secondary research taken out of context. It is a shame that the author does not apply his bravado to the benefit of public security, since the force of his vituperation would surely annihilate any army of raging terrorists. The fact is (conveniently overlooked in the name of progressive diversity) those being targeted by drones are, by and large, the reprehensible authors responsible for the deaths of countless civilians, including men women, children the weak, ill and aged. Quite ironically, liberal utopian pundits such as Chamayou would be the primary targets of those he considers "victims." Chamayou is infuriated that the military does not place its own life on the line (and spill their homicidal blood as he puts it) and accuses them bluntly (and incorrectly) or cowardice and homicide (conveniently overlooking international law and the fact that the rules in place, the laws of armed conflict, are those of international humanitarian law - IHL). To summarize, this is not a title worthy of serious study. When you are forced to start looking to see how many more pages you must painfully endure to be past the tedium, then there is doubtless a significant problem with both the composition and development of the title. As a reminder as if one were needed a *serious* academic investigation of any topic, offers both sides of a debate and allows a reader to draw their own conclusions through introspection and examination of the facts. While we are all prone to bias, to a certain extent, and have our own opinions, a serious academic author attempts to "quiet these down," or at least present them neutrally. Chamayou hammers the reader over the head relentlessly with his twisted self-assurance of his own convictions, whether they are founded or not.There are better books to spend both you time and money upon, don't waste it on an embittered emotional tirade screaming at you relentlessly from left field.
November 4, 2019
The White House estimated that during Barack Obama's administration, between 64 and 116 civilians had died in drone strikes, and between 2,372 to 2,581 combatants. The deaths occurred in 473 strikes from January 20, 2009 to December 31, 2015. In this immensely thought provoking and engaging book, Gregoire Chamayou dwells at length about the 'philosophical' and 'ethical' implications attached to the employment of drones for furthering acts of aggression. Writing with verve and passion on what he terms the 'Narcoethics' of drone warfare, Chamayou comes up with a sophisticated polemic about the wanton damage to person and property caused by indiscriminate use of these unmanned weapons of Arial terror.
Justifications for the use of drones abound as Defense Secretaries, high ranking military personnel, robotics experts, scientist’s et al wax eloquent about the ethical use and moralistic premise underlying the employment of these hovering birds of death. De-linking the combatant from the combat relieves the drone operators from the feelings of guilt, horror, retribution, revenge and similar other cathartic emotions that otherwise assail soldiers engaging the enemy on a battlefield. A drone operator with the use of high resolution images and advanced GPS techniques tracks his prey like a predator wallowing in the luxury of an air conditioned chamber. At the precise moment, he presses a button and unleashes a storm of destruction and devastation. A Hellfire missile comes hurtling from the pilot-less drone and as the very bowels of the earth reverberates in horror, the intended target is incinerated and obliterated. Even though there have been incidents where drone operators have alleged that they also suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders ("PTSD"), these cases are more a rarity than a norm.
Chamayou also offers an interesting ethical perspective bordering on valour and natural justice to refute the contentions of the advocates of the Drone Theory. In every warfare the right to kill is implicitly and almost righteously balanced by the right to be killed. In other words a combatant in battle engages his opponent in the dance of death by accepting the fact that the latter has as much right to kill the former in an equally balanced duel of destiny. This attribute of righteousness is absent in the case of a drone attack. There is an immense imbalance of might in as much as only the side controlling the drone controls the game. The prey in this case has absolutely no 'skin' in the game whatsoever. The horrific images of helpless women and children scrambling to elusive safety in the barren terrains and hills of desolate Waziristan sends a chill down every sensitive and sensible spine.
Chamayou dazzles in this unbiased debate involving the pros and cons of using drones to create wanton mayhem and misery. As the shallow arguments proffered by the American political brigade is torn to shreds, unresolved questions of unrestricted Western hegemony and an innate complex of superiority that characterise American militaristic behaviour merit immediate and conclusive answers.
Meanwhile the hunters continue to haunt the hunted......
Justifications for the use of drones abound as Defense Secretaries, high ranking military personnel, robotics experts, scientist’s et al wax eloquent about the ethical use and moralistic premise underlying the employment of these hovering birds of death. De-linking the combatant from the combat relieves the drone operators from the feelings of guilt, horror, retribution, revenge and similar other cathartic emotions that otherwise assail soldiers engaging the enemy on a battlefield. A drone operator with the use of high resolution images and advanced GPS techniques tracks his prey like a predator wallowing in the luxury of an air conditioned chamber. At the precise moment, he presses a button and unleashes a storm of destruction and devastation. A Hellfire missile comes hurtling from the pilot-less drone and as the very bowels of the earth reverberates in horror, the intended target is incinerated and obliterated. Even though there have been incidents where drone operators have alleged that they also suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders ("PTSD"), these cases are more a rarity than a norm.
Chamayou also offers an interesting ethical perspective bordering on valour and natural justice to refute the contentions of the advocates of the Drone Theory. In every warfare the right to kill is implicitly and almost righteously balanced by the right to be killed. In other words a combatant in battle engages his opponent in the dance of death by accepting the fact that the latter has as much right to kill the former in an equally balanced duel of destiny. This attribute of righteousness is absent in the case of a drone attack. There is an immense imbalance of might in as much as only the side controlling the drone controls the game. The prey in this case has absolutely no 'skin' in the game whatsoever. The horrific images of helpless women and children scrambling to elusive safety in the barren terrains and hills of desolate Waziristan sends a chill down every sensitive and sensible spine.
Chamayou dazzles in this unbiased debate involving the pros and cons of using drones to create wanton mayhem and misery. As the shallow arguments proffered by the American political brigade is torn to shreds, unresolved questions of unrestricted Western hegemony and an innate complex of superiority that characterise American militaristic behaviour merit immediate and conclusive answers.
Meanwhile the hunters continue to haunt the hunted......
June 4, 2023
I have to admit I expected this one to be much more on philosophical side, but I was pleasantly surprised with author's very concise discussion on all aspects of the drone warfare. Author writes in a very clear way and keeps away from any [philosophical and legal] complex terminology that would make this book part of the specialized literature, not easily accessible by laymen in these areas.
Again, I have to admit, my view of the book would be very, very much different weren't it not for events in last 3 years (man, time flies). I would look at statements of officials as .... well lets be true here, as honest professional statements, instead of guesses and complete insecurity (and audacity to push shady agendas) under the pretense of "common good".
I wont go much into details of the book, it really needs to be read. I will just give few general comments.
While I understand that use of robotic/semi-autonomous (full autonomous is so very far away that it borderlines on never, because I cannot think military to be so idiotic (although there are elements proving the opposite) to allow for high powered weapons to be without control) is just progress in military affairs - this is not miracle weapon, it has its own limitations and within year or two (or as a matter of fact even right now) countermeasures will be in place and downgrade it from level of never-before-seen-hi-tech weapon to just one more item in arsenal. I think last year proved this beyond doubt - when encountering ready opponent, with industry, technology, means of production, and history of application of advanced weapon systems, drones are just one of the flying apparatuses performing missions on the front-lines - not behind enemy lines because any air defense will bring them down at some point while en-route (ballistic and supersonic/hypersonic missiles, even cruise missiles (which are basically autonomous drones), are still much much better for this type of operations).
Reason why drones are dangerous is because they provide government, which is completely divorced from reality when it comes to combat with serious opposition, easy PR campaign with which they can organize videos and images how they managed to destroy one or the other terrorist leader in the middle of nowhere after months of observation. This enables them to use drone actions as templates to start bush fires all over the world.
Common misconception is that drones are very cheap - they are not. Any reusable combat drone - air, sea or land - is very, very expensive, not to mention carrying highly sensitive sensor suits that nobody wants to fall to wrong hands. Single-use, so called suicide drones (or technically, loitering munitions) are nothing more than actual munitions with ability not to drop immediately to the ground but orbit for some time while seeking for targets. These are relatively cheap but they are not something unexpected nor new on the battlefield already bristling with equivalent PGMs (ranging from air deployed, artillery or even infantry weapons).
Main topic of the book are drones on expensive part of the spectrum - aircraft substitutions, armed with anti-tank missiles and with ability to fly over the target for a long time (again only in case of uncontested air-space) in order to track targets.
Main issues with this new way of waging war are the following:
- Drones are presented as more "humane" means of waging war, but nobody is actually clear why are they more "humane" than standard means of waging war. Using high explosive anti tank missile (or even air bomb) that has a substantial blast area hardly makes this a precision weapon. Much more scalpel-like-tool would be high powered rifle. But the goal is not precision but for all means and purposes high altitude terror - if only targeted terrorists were the ones under pressure, instead, entire population is held under the threat of Damocles sword.
- For a man with hammer, every problem is nail. Western governments see use of drones now as solution for everything (until they come across true military force). Since these actions are spectacular, easily advertised (and very hard to confirm the success and level of collateral damage), whenever in doubt how to solve the issue, drones are [naturally] taken as a solution. Result, you ask? Well nothing much but constant involvement in conflicts not just in war zones but over areas where there are no war operations and even in allied countries.
- Might makes right. Ability to strike everywhere makes Western governments think of themselves as omnipotent and with right to strike at anything they consider opposition, anywhere in the world. Basically this is what you might call rise of wars of assassins, wars that have nothing to do with actual war (covert or overt). It can be executed much easier than before (i.e. in case of use of planes, they would need to be moved to deployment area, pilots briefed etc; in this case there are drones based all over the world controlled from comfortably seated pilots somewhere in secure area in base country, just start the drones up under any pretense and off you go) and advertised any way you like because other side is always the "one that lies". Problems come up when wrong party is attacked, and government does not have exit strategy in this case. This causes escalation cycle that can cause the end.
- International law - what law? This is covered by above might makes right. Wars of assassins are never-ending wars and entire world is battlefield. They are always waged by "angels" of course, and in [unlikely, khm, khm!] case of errors they will always very politely say "we are sorry". So all good.
- Government no longer sees the citizenry as contributing body. Populace is seen as if it needs to be constantly guided and controlled and any opposition quickly brought under control. Since production is outsourced, and automatic systems dont need that many people (or even people from the same country, just imagine outsourced intervention control centers in third party countries), rest of the populace can be very easily put under control by use of these very automated systems (considering that, if anything, last few years showed that large part of any population are biological drones, with good percentage of zealots ready to point to anyone who is non-compliant). In this case drones are just part of the arsenal, external surveillance systems (cameras everywhere, obedient zealotry) and internal surveillance systems (phone software, social networks, habit monitoring etc) are majority of capabilities in question. This is the most serious side effect because state previously worked hard to keep populace happy because it needed it for any type of national enterprise (amongst other things for war). Now, tables have turned and it is more than obvious that governments today see their populace in completely different light. I think this will backfire in a huge way, but unfortunately it will take time.
All in all very good overview of all pitfalls created to approve and justify the use of drones, pitfalls that have created precedents that are ruining world peace at high pace. I just hope this constant erosion of international relations does not bring world to the utter destruction.
Very interesting book on the topic, highly recommended.
Again, I have to admit, my view of the book would be very, very much different weren't it not for events in last 3 years (man, time flies). I would look at statements of officials as .... well lets be true here, as honest professional statements, instead of guesses and complete insecurity (and audacity to push shady agendas) under the pretense of "common good".
I wont go much into details of the book, it really needs to be read. I will just give few general comments.
While I understand that use of robotic/semi-autonomous (full autonomous is so very far away that it borderlines on never, because I cannot think military to be so idiotic (although there are elements proving the opposite) to allow for high powered weapons to be without control) is just progress in military affairs - this is not miracle weapon, it has its own limitations and within year or two (or as a matter of fact even right now) countermeasures will be in place and downgrade it from level of never-before-seen-hi-tech weapon to just one more item in arsenal. I think last year proved this beyond doubt - when encountering ready opponent, with industry, technology, means of production, and history of application of advanced weapon systems, drones are just one of the flying apparatuses performing missions on the front-lines - not behind enemy lines because any air defense will bring them down at some point while en-route (ballistic and supersonic/hypersonic missiles, even cruise missiles (which are basically autonomous drones), are still much much better for this type of operations).
Reason why drones are dangerous is because they provide government, which is completely divorced from reality when it comes to combat with serious opposition, easy PR campaign with which they can organize videos and images how they managed to destroy one or the other terrorist leader in the middle of nowhere after months of observation. This enables them to use drone actions as templates to start bush fires all over the world.
Common misconception is that drones are very cheap - they are not. Any reusable combat drone - air, sea or land - is very, very expensive, not to mention carrying highly sensitive sensor suits that nobody wants to fall to wrong hands. Single-use, so called suicide drones (or technically, loitering munitions) are nothing more than actual munitions with ability not to drop immediately to the ground but orbit for some time while seeking for targets. These are relatively cheap but they are not something unexpected nor new on the battlefield already bristling with equivalent PGMs (ranging from air deployed, artillery or even infantry weapons).
Main topic of the book are drones on expensive part of the spectrum - aircraft substitutions, armed with anti-tank missiles and with ability to fly over the target for a long time (again only in case of uncontested air-space) in order to track targets.
Main issues with this new way of waging war are the following:
- Drones are presented as more "humane" means of waging war, but nobody is actually clear why are they more "humane" than standard means of waging war. Using high explosive anti tank missile (or even air bomb) that has a substantial blast area hardly makes this a precision weapon. Much more scalpel-like-tool would be high powered rifle. But the goal is not precision but for all means and purposes high altitude terror - if only targeted terrorists were the ones under pressure, instead, entire population is held under the threat of Damocles sword.
- For a man with hammer, every problem is nail. Western governments see use of drones now as solution for everything (until they come across true military force). Since these actions are spectacular, easily advertised (and very hard to confirm the success and level of collateral damage), whenever in doubt how to solve the issue, drones are [naturally] taken as a solution. Result, you ask? Well nothing much but constant involvement in conflicts not just in war zones but over areas where there are no war operations and even in allied countries.
- Might makes right. Ability to strike everywhere makes Western governments think of themselves as omnipotent and with right to strike at anything they consider opposition, anywhere in the world. Basically this is what you might call rise of wars of assassins, wars that have nothing to do with actual war (covert or overt). It can be executed much easier than before (i.e. in case of use of planes, they would need to be moved to deployment area, pilots briefed etc; in this case there are drones based all over the world controlled from comfortably seated pilots somewhere in secure area in base country, just start the drones up under any pretense and off you go) and advertised any way you like because other side is always the "one that lies". Problems come up when wrong party is attacked, and government does not have exit strategy in this case. This causes escalation cycle that can cause the end.
- International law - what law? This is covered by above might makes right. Wars of assassins are never-ending wars and entire world is battlefield. They are always waged by "angels" of course, and in [unlikely, khm, khm!] case of errors they will always very politely say "we are sorry". So all good.
- Government no longer sees the citizenry as contributing body. Populace is seen as if it needs to be constantly guided and controlled and any opposition quickly brought under control. Since production is outsourced, and automatic systems dont need that many people (or even people from the same country, just imagine outsourced intervention control centers in third party countries), rest of the populace can be very easily put under control by use of these very automated systems (considering that, if anything, last few years showed that large part of any population are biological drones, with good percentage of zealots ready to point to anyone who is non-compliant). In this case drones are just part of the arsenal, external surveillance systems (cameras everywhere, obedient zealotry) and internal surveillance systems (phone software, social networks, habit monitoring etc) are majority of capabilities in question. This is the most serious side effect because state previously worked hard to keep populace happy because it needed it for any type of national enterprise (amongst other things for war). Now, tables have turned and it is more than obvious that governments today see their populace in completely different light. I think this will backfire in a huge way, but unfortunately it will take time.
All in all very good overview of all pitfalls created to approve and justify the use of drones, pitfalls that have created precedents that are ruining world peace at high pace. I just hope this constant erosion of international relations does not bring world to the utter destruction.
Very interesting book on the topic, highly recommended.
September 29, 2015
"Sometimes in life things are controlled that change our fate. Other times the things that are being controlled change our fate and shape our future." -Chet Brown
A new matter has struck all of us this past year and it has left some of us baffled. I am addressing the matter of the drone. Drones are just becoming more upon us technologically and scientifically. All across the United States people are addressing the matter of whether drones should be legal in our country or not. Media is in a frenzy with drones and how they are being used and also how they could be used in the future.
In this book, “A Theory of the Drone”, philosopher Gregoire Chamayou, brings us an understanding and clear view of the Drone. He really talks about how drones are advancing so much that they are just used for recon and little toys. These little drone toys and little recon drones have evolved to much more. They are now killing machines and can be controlled from miles and miles away. Many times when drones are used over seize they are being controlled from thousands of miles away. It has brought the question to the U.S. of if they are legal? Or is it fair for us to be using all these drones killing people over seize day by day.
The drone is truly fascinating because it is shaping our future over seize and also in our country. All the drones over-seize are protecting our soldiers and bringing us a new outlook of warfare. In our very own country we are testing whether drones should be used for package delivery. There is so many opportunities and options and opinions about these drones. Only time can tell of what will become of this new matter that is leaving us all starry-eyed in amazement. If you’re the type of person that is interested in technology and how it will shape our future then you would love this book. If you aren’t such a technological person then you would be bored with this.
A new matter has struck all of us this past year and it has left some of us baffled. I am addressing the matter of the drone. Drones are just becoming more upon us technologically and scientifically. All across the United States people are addressing the matter of whether drones should be legal in our country or not. Media is in a frenzy with drones and how they are being used and also how they could be used in the future.
In this book, “A Theory of the Drone”, philosopher Gregoire Chamayou, brings us an understanding and clear view of the Drone. He really talks about how drones are advancing so much that they are just used for recon and little toys. These little drone toys and little recon drones have evolved to much more. They are now killing machines and can be controlled from miles and miles away. Many times when drones are used over seize they are being controlled from thousands of miles away. It has brought the question to the U.S. of if they are legal? Or is it fair for us to be using all these drones killing people over seize day by day.
The drone is truly fascinating because it is shaping our future over seize and also in our country. All the drones over-seize are protecting our soldiers and bringing us a new outlook of warfare. In our very own country we are testing whether drones should be used for package delivery. There is so many opportunities and options and opinions about these drones. Only time can tell of what will become of this new matter that is leaving us all starry-eyed in amazement. If you’re the type of person that is interested in technology and how it will shape our future then you would love this book. If you aren’t such a technological person then you would be bored with this.
October 13, 2025
Während in mehreren europäischen Regionen jüngst Drohnenalarme ausgelöst werden und die Öffentlichkeit erneut über den Einsatz autonomer Waffensysteme debattiert, gewinnt Grégoire Chamayous „Théorie du drone“ (2013) eine beklemmende Aktualität. Zehn Jahre nach ihrem Erscheinen wirkt die Analyse aktueller denn je: Sie zeigt, dass die Drohne nicht nur ein technologisches, sondern ein zutiefst politisches und moralisches Problem darstellt. Chamayou beschreibt sie als ein „gewalttätiges, nicht identifiziertes Objekt“ (objet violent non identifié), das zentrale Kategorien menschlichen Handelns und Denkens in eine Krise der Verständlichkeit (crise d’intelligibilité) stürzt.
Das Buch ist keine technische Studie, sondern eine philosophische Untersuchung (travail d’investigation philosophique) der Drohne als Dispositiv entkörperlichter Gewalt. Chamayou verfolgt die polemische Absicht, diese Krise analytisch zu durchdringen. Er argumentiert, dass die Drohne als radikalstes Instrument der Fernkriegsführung eine Tendenz zur absoluten Eliminierung jeglicher Reziprozität in der Gewaltausübung darstellt und damit die konventionellen Paradigmen militärischer Ethik, des Kriegsrechts und der politischen Souveränität auflöst.
Das Buch beginnt mit einer Analyse der militärischen und strategischen Verschiebungen. Das leitende Prinzip des Drohneneinsatzes lautet: Macht projizieren, ohne Verwundbarkeit zu projizieren (projeter du pouvoir sans projeter de vulnérabilité). Diese Strategie radikalisiert bestehende Tendenzen der Fernkriegsführung bis zu dem Punkt, an dem Krieg zu einer absolut unilateralen Aktion oder einer „einfachen Abschlachtungskampagne“ (simple campagne d’abattage) degeneriert. Die traditionelle Kriegsgeographie weicht einer Geopolitik der Volumina und der „Kill Box“ – einer temporär aktivierbaren Tötungszone, die es erlaubt, überall auf der Welt zu operieren. Strategisch bedeutet dies den Triumph des Antiterrorismus über die klassische, politisch-militärische Aufstandsbekämpfung (COIN, Counterinsurgency). Der Antiterrorismus ist individuen-zentriert (individuo-centrée) und verfolgt das Ziel der prophylaktischen Eliminierung potenzieller Akteure, unabhängig von einer unmittelbaren Bedrohung.
Diese einseitige Tötung aus sicherer Distanz führt zu einer Krise des militärischen Ethos. Die Drohne, die den Tod des Anwenders im Akt des Tötens a priori ausschließt, erscheint im Lichte klassischer Tugenden wie Mut und Opferbereitschaft (esprit de sacrifice) als „Waffe des Feiglings“ (arme du lâche). Ihr Gegenbild ist der Kamikaze-Angreifer, der Körper und Waffe vollständig verschmilzt und den sicheren Tod in Kauf nimmt. Die Drohne ist der Anti-Kamikaze: Sie ersetzt das traditionelle, auf Opferbereitschaft gegründete Ethos durch eine Ethik der Selbstbewahrung (auto-préservation). Um diesen Widerspruch zu überwinden, entsteht eine „Nekroethik“, die die Drohne zur „humanitären Waffe“ (arme humanitaire) verklärt – gestützt auf das Prinzip der Immunität des imperialen Kämpfers, der die Bewahrung des eigenen Lebens absolut über die Minimierung feindlicher Verluste stellt.
Mit „Nekroethik“ (nécroéthique) bezeichnet Chamayou polemisch jene neue Rechtfertigungsideologie der Gewalt, die das Töten selbst moralisch aufwertet. An die Stelle der klassischen Ethik des Lebens tritt eine Ethik des Tötens, die das Töten nicht mehr in Frage stellt, sondern optimiert. Indem sie die Drohne als „humanitäre Waffe“ (arme humanitaire) feiert, verwandelt sie das Töten in eine scheinbar moralische Handlung – ein Akt technischer Präzision, nicht mehr der Schuld. Die Nekroethik ist somit eine Ethik des Todes, die Gewalt durch die Sprache des Guten legitimiert.
Hier zieht Chamayou eine tiefgreifende Verbindung zur klassischen Kriegstheorie, insbesondere zu Carl von Clausewitz. Dessen Begriff der „moralischen Kraft“ (force morale) beruhte auf der „Bereitschaft zum Opfer“ (prêt à mourir). Chamayou erinnert an Militärtheoretiker wie Dragomiroff, für die die Mission des Soldaten darin bestand, „zu töten, indem wir getötet werden“ (tuer en nous faisant tuer). Die Drohne bricht diese Dialektik: Sie beseitigt die Reziprozität, auf der das Recht, straffrei zu töten (droit de tuer sans crime), beruhte – jenen „stillen Pakt“ (pacte tacite) gegenseitiger Gefährdung. Indem die Drohne diesen Pakt aufkündigt und den Kampf durch bloße Ausführung ersetzt, verwandelt sie den Soldaten in einen „Attentäter“. Der Tötungsakt wird durch die extreme Distanz entleert; physisches Risiko wird durch „psychische Tapferkeit“ (héroïsme purement psychique) ersetzt.
Die soziopolitischen Folgen sind weitreichend. Die Drohne bietet eine technische Lösung für den zentralen Widerspruch moderner Souveränität: Krieg führen zu können, ohne Opfer von den eigenen Untertanen zu verlangen. So lässt sich kriegerische Souveränität unter den politischen Bedingungen der schützenden Sicherheitssouveränität ausüben – Krieg „à la guerre comme à la paix“. Die Externalisierung der Risiken – politisch, fiskalisch, ethisch – durch diese „Low-Cost“-Waffe führt zum „Moral Hazard“ (aléa moral). Die Hemmschwelle für militärische Interventionen sinkt, wodurch das kantische Ideal des demokratischen Friedens in sein Gegenteil verkehrt wird: den „demokratischen Militarismus“.
Juristisch bewegt sich der Drohneneinsatz in einem „flou artistique“ (künstlerische Unschärfe) zwischen Kriegsrecht und Polizeirecht. Dadurch lassen sich die strengen Auflagen beider Regime umgehen – im Ergebnis entsteht eine globale „Licence to Kill“. Eng damit verknüpft ist das epistemologische Problem der Zielidentifikation, Chamayous „chinesischer Schatten“ (ombre chinoise). Da Drohnen nur Verhaltensmuster (pattern of life analysis) aus der Ferne erfassen – die Schatten des realen Objekts – beruhen Tötungsentscheidungen (Signature Strikes) auf Induktion und Wahrscheinlichkeit statt auf Gewissheit. Dies führt unweigerlich zu indiskriminierter Tötung und mündet in die Forderung nach vollständig autonomen letalen Systemen, wodurch die Zurechnung von Verantwortung (responsabilité) für Kriegsverbrechen nahezu unmöglich wird.
Chamayous Buch schließt mit der Diagnose, dass die Drohne nicht bloß eine militärische Waffe, sondern ein „Dispositiv zur Herstellung von Unverantwortlichkeit“ ist. „Théorie du drone“ ist ein notwendiger Beitrag im philosophischen Schlachtfeld: Es demaskiert die Euphemismen und sophistischen Rechtfertigungen der Nekroethik und zeigt die tiefgreifenden politischen wie moralischen Konsequenzen der einseitigen, entkörperlichten Tötung auf.
Angesichts der zunehmenden Drohnenpräsenz über europäischen Städten und der Debatten um autonome Waffensysteme liest sich Chamayous Analyse wie eine Vorwegnahme der Gegenwart. Sie erinnert daran, dass technologische Distanz keine moralische Distanz schafft – und dass der Krieg aus der Ferne nicht weniger, sondern auf andere Weise entmenschlicht ist.
Das Buch ist keine technische Studie, sondern eine philosophische Untersuchung (travail d’investigation philosophique) der Drohne als Dispositiv entkörperlichter Gewalt. Chamayou verfolgt die polemische Absicht, diese Krise analytisch zu durchdringen. Er argumentiert, dass die Drohne als radikalstes Instrument der Fernkriegsführung eine Tendenz zur absoluten Eliminierung jeglicher Reziprozität in der Gewaltausübung darstellt und damit die konventionellen Paradigmen militärischer Ethik, des Kriegsrechts und der politischen Souveränität auflöst.
Das Buch beginnt mit einer Analyse der militärischen und strategischen Verschiebungen. Das leitende Prinzip des Drohneneinsatzes lautet: Macht projizieren, ohne Verwundbarkeit zu projizieren (projeter du pouvoir sans projeter de vulnérabilité). Diese Strategie radikalisiert bestehende Tendenzen der Fernkriegsführung bis zu dem Punkt, an dem Krieg zu einer absolut unilateralen Aktion oder einer „einfachen Abschlachtungskampagne“ (simple campagne d’abattage) degeneriert. Die traditionelle Kriegsgeographie weicht einer Geopolitik der Volumina und der „Kill Box“ – einer temporär aktivierbaren Tötungszone, die es erlaubt, überall auf der Welt zu operieren. Strategisch bedeutet dies den Triumph des Antiterrorismus über die klassische, politisch-militärische Aufstandsbekämpfung (COIN, Counterinsurgency). Der Antiterrorismus ist individuen-zentriert (individuo-centrée) und verfolgt das Ziel der prophylaktischen Eliminierung potenzieller Akteure, unabhängig von einer unmittelbaren Bedrohung.
Diese einseitige Tötung aus sicherer Distanz führt zu einer Krise des militärischen Ethos. Die Drohne, die den Tod des Anwenders im Akt des Tötens a priori ausschließt, erscheint im Lichte klassischer Tugenden wie Mut und Opferbereitschaft (esprit de sacrifice) als „Waffe des Feiglings“ (arme du lâche). Ihr Gegenbild ist der Kamikaze-Angreifer, der Körper und Waffe vollständig verschmilzt und den sicheren Tod in Kauf nimmt. Die Drohne ist der Anti-Kamikaze: Sie ersetzt das traditionelle, auf Opferbereitschaft gegründete Ethos durch eine Ethik der Selbstbewahrung (auto-préservation). Um diesen Widerspruch zu überwinden, entsteht eine „Nekroethik“, die die Drohne zur „humanitären Waffe“ (arme humanitaire) verklärt – gestützt auf das Prinzip der Immunität des imperialen Kämpfers, der die Bewahrung des eigenen Lebens absolut über die Minimierung feindlicher Verluste stellt.
Mit „Nekroethik“ (nécroéthique) bezeichnet Chamayou polemisch jene neue Rechtfertigungsideologie der Gewalt, die das Töten selbst moralisch aufwertet. An die Stelle der klassischen Ethik des Lebens tritt eine Ethik des Tötens, die das Töten nicht mehr in Frage stellt, sondern optimiert. Indem sie die Drohne als „humanitäre Waffe“ (arme humanitaire) feiert, verwandelt sie das Töten in eine scheinbar moralische Handlung – ein Akt technischer Präzision, nicht mehr der Schuld. Die Nekroethik ist somit eine Ethik des Todes, die Gewalt durch die Sprache des Guten legitimiert.
Hier zieht Chamayou eine tiefgreifende Verbindung zur klassischen Kriegstheorie, insbesondere zu Carl von Clausewitz. Dessen Begriff der „moralischen Kraft“ (force morale) beruhte auf der „Bereitschaft zum Opfer“ (prêt à mourir). Chamayou erinnert an Militärtheoretiker wie Dragomiroff, für die die Mission des Soldaten darin bestand, „zu töten, indem wir getötet werden“ (tuer en nous faisant tuer). Die Drohne bricht diese Dialektik: Sie beseitigt die Reziprozität, auf der das Recht, straffrei zu töten (droit de tuer sans crime), beruhte – jenen „stillen Pakt“ (pacte tacite) gegenseitiger Gefährdung. Indem die Drohne diesen Pakt aufkündigt und den Kampf durch bloße Ausführung ersetzt, verwandelt sie den Soldaten in einen „Attentäter“. Der Tötungsakt wird durch die extreme Distanz entleert; physisches Risiko wird durch „psychische Tapferkeit“ (héroïsme purement psychique) ersetzt.
Die soziopolitischen Folgen sind weitreichend. Die Drohne bietet eine technische Lösung für den zentralen Widerspruch moderner Souveränität: Krieg führen zu können, ohne Opfer von den eigenen Untertanen zu verlangen. So lässt sich kriegerische Souveränität unter den politischen Bedingungen der schützenden Sicherheitssouveränität ausüben – Krieg „à la guerre comme à la paix“. Die Externalisierung der Risiken – politisch, fiskalisch, ethisch – durch diese „Low-Cost“-Waffe führt zum „Moral Hazard“ (aléa moral). Die Hemmschwelle für militärische Interventionen sinkt, wodurch das kantische Ideal des demokratischen Friedens in sein Gegenteil verkehrt wird: den „demokratischen Militarismus“.
Juristisch bewegt sich der Drohneneinsatz in einem „flou artistique“ (künstlerische Unschärfe) zwischen Kriegsrecht und Polizeirecht. Dadurch lassen sich die strengen Auflagen beider Regime umgehen – im Ergebnis entsteht eine globale „Licence to Kill“. Eng damit verknüpft ist das epistemologische Problem der Zielidentifikation, Chamayous „chinesischer Schatten“ (ombre chinoise). Da Drohnen nur Verhaltensmuster (pattern of life analysis) aus der Ferne erfassen – die Schatten des realen Objekts – beruhen Tötungsentscheidungen (Signature Strikes) auf Induktion und Wahrscheinlichkeit statt auf Gewissheit. Dies führt unweigerlich zu indiskriminierter Tötung und mündet in die Forderung nach vollständig autonomen letalen Systemen, wodurch die Zurechnung von Verantwortung (responsabilité) für Kriegsverbrechen nahezu unmöglich wird.
Chamayous Buch schließt mit der Diagnose, dass die Drohne nicht bloß eine militärische Waffe, sondern ein „Dispositiv zur Herstellung von Unverantwortlichkeit“ ist. „Théorie du drone“ ist ein notwendiger Beitrag im philosophischen Schlachtfeld: Es demaskiert die Euphemismen und sophistischen Rechtfertigungen der Nekroethik und zeigt die tiefgreifenden politischen wie moralischen Konsequenzen der einseitigen, entkörperlichten Tötung auf.
Angesichts der zunehmenden Drohnenpräsenz über europäischen Städten und der Debatten um autonome Waffensysteme liest sich Chamayous Analyse wie eine Vorwegnahme der Gegenwart. Sie erinnert daran, dass technologische Distanz keine moralische Distanz schafft – und dass der Krieg aus der Ferne nicht weniger, sondern auf andere Weise entmenschlicht ist.
November 21, 2024
Interessante uiteenzetting over de morele bezwaren bij het inzetten van drones.
Daarnaast geeft het boek ook een mooi historisch overzicht van hoe we op dit punt gekomen zijn, waar drones een 'go to' methode geworden zijn om aanvallen uit te voeren. Er worden goede bruggen gemaakt naar aanverwante disciplines zoals sociologie en (internationaal) recht.
Daarnaast geeft het boek ook een mooi historisch overzicht van hoe we op dit punt gekomen zijn, waar drones een 'go to' methode geworden zijn om aanvallen uit te voeren. Er worden goede bruggen gemaakt naar aanverwante disciplines zoals sociologie en (internationaal) recht.
October 30, 2021
This is a needlessly densely written book. For sure it goes deep into the morality & philosophy around drone warfare but is at times impenetrable in its academic language, logic from historical philosophers & injections in Latin.
If you truly understand something: just state it clearly & simply. If Christina Thompson can explain the scientific evidence clearly with accessible human stories how we migrated across the Pacific in “Sea People: The Puzzle of Polynesia” or Daniel Kahneman can bring behavioural economics to the masses, why can’t this be done for Drone Theory?
The author spends too much time digging into why drone use is morally & legally wrong (which I agree with btw) but fails to think through “if nations simply ignore the legality & morality, then what?”
It dwells on the cruel asymmetry of the drone operator & target, without considering terror attacks as a reaction to drone strikes & how both work together in a negative spiral. It’s not that targets of US drones can’t fight back - it’s that they do so in different ways, times & locations.
If you truly understand something: just state it clearly & simply. If Christina Thompson can explain the scientific evidence clearly with accessible human stories how we migrated across the Pacific in “Sea People: The Puzzle of Polynesia” or Daniel Kahneman can bring behavioural economics to the masses, why can’t this be done for Drone Theory?
The author spends too much time digging into why drone use is morally & legally wrong (which I agree with btw) but fails to think through “if nations simply ignore the legality & morality, then what?”
It dwells on the cruel asymmetry of the drone operator & target, without considering terror attacks as a reaction to drone strikes & how both work together in a negative spiral. It’s not that targets of US drones can’t fight back - it’s that they do so in different ways, times & locations.
December 19, 2015
Excelente análise crítica sobre o desenvolvimento dos drones e sua aplicação para fins bélicos. Trata-se de um verdadeiro estudo sobre o tema, baseando seus argumentos em documentos, relatos, doutrinas militares, técnicas e táticas. Apesar de tratar de questões delicadas, inclusive morais e filosóficas, é um livro de fácil leitura.
January 26, 2015
Forensic examination of the many ways in which drone use is utterly fucked up. Fairly clear and crisp, despite sometimes lapsing into unnecessary jargon which mirrors the famously opaque language of the military.
November 30, 2015
A thoughtful exploration of what drones mean for the deployers, the targets and their societies.
August 25, 2016
até agora, o livro mais importante do século 21.
January 31, 2023
Неплохой трудец, оставляющий всё же впечатление, будто и большее можно было бы обнаружить на посвящённых соответствующей тематике блогах, в существовании (или "дронизации") которых не приходится сомневаться. Потому первое, что хотелось бы сказать - потеплело в том месте, где обычно в таких случаях теплеет, при обнаружени цитаты из де Куинси в эпиграфе, да. Есть что-то неуловимо общее между англичанами, употреблявшими опиум, и военной политикой Соединённых Однажды Штатов, нет?
Второй момент - возможно, в задачи автора не входило это, но совершенно отсутствует упоминание того, что "величие" держав чаще всего проявляется в том, насколько они способны, если не зачинать, то хотя бы продолжать, продлевать и завершать войны чужими руками. И речь не о наёмниках. Чем не "дистанционное образование"?
Грегуар задаёт один тривиальный, но не теряющий актуальности вопрос: "Как вы можете верить в собственную человечность, если не верите в человечность своего врага?" - вопрос, можно надеяться, способный качественно вымыть самые дешёвые и грубые (поскольку главную роль в оценке событий играют именно они, а не те, что требуют некоторого дарования и изобретательности) из идеологических наработок года 2022 и ранее. Только кому его следует задавать-то и кем он должен быть задан?
Ведь и вопрос и убийство, если верить автору и собственным не слишком внимательным и весьма роскошествующим в отношении времени наблюдениям - это клик. Соответственно, и ответ\реакция\игнор и возмездие\ответственность - это даже не анти-клик и не какой-ниубдь пост-клик, а самый обыкновенный, слизанный без зазрения совести с предыдущего "клик" (помещаемый мной в кавычки исключительно с целью избежания необходимости постановки пунктуационно-сознательной запятой).
"Политическая ошибка заключается в нашей вере в то, что автоматизация сама по себе является чем-то автоматическим" - и по-древнегречески (циклически, иначе говоря) оправданным следствием круговращения технологий в природе человеческого разумного безрассудства. Политическая ошибка, можно заключить, состоит в том, что мы продолжаем искренне верить, не смотря на с завидной (для внеземных цивилизаций) регулярностью профилактически выставляемую "во главу угла" историю (человеческих и общественных взаимоотношений) - что политическое решение всё же может не быть ошибочным. Что хотя бы гипертетически возможно то, что не стоило бы назвать ошибкой ещё до его возникновения в уме человека, принципиально не проявляющего заинтересованности в политике.
Почему однако "нельзя представить себе американского камикадзе"? Встречный вопрос, можно ли представить, в таком случае, камикадзе французского, финского или болгарского?
И что вообще знает французский философ, например, о неоправданном экзистенциально, но предельно закреплённом на расстоянии отдельного взятого органа обоняния онтологически, жертвовании этим самым органом в том числе? Если дрон "был рождён в Голливуде", то рождение боевых самоубийц предшествует "Илиаде" - но был ли каждый рождённый и пошедший на сознательную жертву собой на боевом задании рождён исключительно для самоубийства, как кто-то рождается, например, для воплощения в музыке Валькирий либо для сочинения романа с историческим и просто прекрасным названием, "Вальпургиева ночь"?
Речь о том, что камикадзе - это не социальная роль, а отдельная задача, которую ставили и будут ставить перед теми, кто не вполне готов взять на себя ответственность за масштабы развязанной войны. Смерть, на мой взгляд, гибель во имя спасения, которое ничем не гарантировано или гарантировано исключительно гибелью - это героизм, соглашусь, но героизм сам по себе не является показателем способности человека нести ответственность за собственные поступки в условиях военных действий. Открытый вопрос - почему героизм не обсуждается, если мы живём среди и под надзором людей, провозглашающих ценностью человеческой жизни как первейшую?
Что касается "этичности" роботов и "теории дронов" в целом: второе представляет собой, скорее, дроны теории, в то время как первое - чрезвычайно длительное обсуждавшаяся в художественной литературе проблема; в поддержку или опровержение "гуманности" машины в сравнении с бесчеловечностью человека сказано слишком многое - научпоп, журналистика, нон-фикшн не могут к тому прибавить ничего в принципе, даже если их позиция оказывается фундаментальной для дальнейшего развития роботехники. На мой взгляд, эти процессы вышли за пределы продолжающего разворачиваться в рамках научной и не совсем фантастики образца середины ХХ века.
..and it may be that every 'seemingly final dehumanisation' of humanity is just a little step closer to 'seemingly higher level' of controllability of 'seemingly human being'.
Ознакомиться можно, но даже "клипового" откровения ждать с трудом приходится, даже рискующим оказаться одной из побочных целей "дронизации" всех сфер гражданского существования.
Второй момент - возможно, в задачи автора не входило это, но совершенно отсутствует упоминание того, что "величие" держав чаще всего проявляется в том, насколько они способны, если не зачинать, то хотя бы продолжать, продлевать и завершать войны чужими руками. И речь не о наёмниках. Чем не "дистанционное образование"?
Грегуар задаёт один тривиальный, но не теряющий актуальности вопрос: "Как вы можете верить в собственную человечность, если не верите в человечность своего врага?" - вопрос, можно надеяться, способный качественно вымыть самые дешёвые и грубые (поскольку главную роль в оценке событий играют именно они, а не те, что требуют некоторого дарования и изобретательности) из идеологических наработок года 2022 и ранее. Только кому его следует задавать-то и кем он должен быть задан?
Ведь и вопрос и убийство, если верить автору и собственным не слишком внимательным и весьма роскошествующим в отношении времени наблюдениям - это клик. Соответственно, и ответ\реакция\игнор и возмездие\ответственность - это даже не анти-клик и не какой-ниубдь пост-клик, а самый обыкновенный, слизанный без зазрения совести с предыдущего "клик" (помещаемый мной в кавычки исключительно с целью избежания необходимости постановки пунктуационно-сознательной запятой).
"Политическая ошибка заключается в нашей вере в то, что автоматизация сама по себе является чем-то автоматическим" - и по-древнегречески (циклически, иначе говоря) оправданным следствием круговращения технологий в природе человеческого разумного безрассудства. Политическая ошибка, можно заключить, состоит в том, что мы продолжаем искренне верить, не смотря на с завидной (для внеземных цивилизаций) регулярностью профилактически выставляемую "во главу угла" историю (человеческих и общественных взаимоотношений) - что политическое решение всё же может не быть ошибочным. Что хотя бы гипертетически возможно то, что не стоило бы назвать ошибкой ещё до его возникновения в уме человека, принципиально не проявляющего заинтересованности в политике.
Почему однако "нельзя представить себе американского камикадзе"? Встречный вопрос, можно ли представить, в таком случае, камикадзе французского, финского или болгарского?
И что вообще знает французский философ, например, о неоправданном экзистенциально, но предельно закреплённом на расстоянии отдельного взятого органа обоняния онтологически, жертвовании этим самым органом в том числе? Если дрон "был рождён в Голливуде", то рождение боевых самоубийц предшествует "Илиаде" - но был ли каждый рождённый и пошедший на сознательную жертву собой на боевом задании рождён исключительно для самоубийства, как кто-то рождается, например, для воплощения в музыке Валькирий либо для сочинения романа с историческим и просто прекрасным названием, "Вальпургиева ночь"?
Речь о том, что камикадзе - это не социальная роль, а отдельная задача, которую ставили и будут ставить перед теми, кто не вполне готов взять на себя ответственность за масштабы развязанной войны. Смерть, на мой взгляд, гибель во имя спасения, которое ничем не гарантировано или гарантировано исключительно гибелью - это героизм, соглашусь, но героизм сам по себе не является показателем способности человека нести ответственность за собственные поступки в условиях военных действий. Открытый вопрос - почему героизм не обсуждается, если мы живём среди и под надзором людей, провозглашающих ценностью человеческой жизни как первейшую?
Что касается "этичности" роботов и "теории дронов" в целом: второе представляет собой, скорее, дроны теории, в то время как первое - чрезвычайно длительное обсуждавшаяся в художественной литературе проблема; в поддержку или опровержение "гуманности" машины в сравнении с бесчеловечностью человека сказано слишком многое - научпоп, журналистика, нон-фикшн не могут к тому прибавить ничего в принципе, даже если их позиция оказывается фундаментальной для дальнейшего развития роботехники. На мой взгляд, эти процессы вышли за пределы продолжающего разворачиваться в рамках научной и не совсем фантастики образца середины ХХ века.
..and it may be that every 'seemingly final dehumanisation' of humanity is just a little step closer to 'seemingly higher level' of controllability of 'seemingly human being'.
Ознакомиться можно, но даже "клипового" откровения ждать с трудом приходится, даже рискующим оказаться одной из побочных целей "дронизации" всех сфер гражданского существования.
Read
November 12, 2017Judged by the yardstick of such classical categories, a drone looks like the weapon of cowards. * * * "Warfare without risk," in which the drone is probably the most effective instrument. p. 17
. . . the rights typically associated with being in armed conflict go up in smoke. p. 18
When you can hear the drone circling in the sky, you think it might strike you. We're always scared. We always have this fear in our head. p. 44
. . . the strike is made "without knowing the precise identity of the individuals targeted." It depends solely on their behavior, which seen from the sky, appears to "correspond to a 'signature' of pre-identified behavior that the United States links to militant activity." Today, strikes of this type, against unknown suspects, appear to constitute the majority of cases." p. 45 !!!!!!
According to the military and the
CIA, it is because we can aim at our targets with precision that we can strike them down wherever we choose, even outside any war zone. p. 57 !!!!!
By dying with his victim, coagulating both crime and punishment within a single action, he makes punishment impossible and thereby degactivates the fundamental resort of a form of justice conceived in the penal mode. p. 88
"If our technology is new, the desire to take out one's enemies from a safe distance is anything but." p. 93
The drone is the weapon of an amnesiac postcolonial violence. p. 95
In other words, bravery consists in doing the dirty work (drone operator). p. 102
So the media buzz around the suffering of drone operators was without foundation. Military psychologists discovered no trace of post-traumatic stress disorder. p. 110
In a state supplied with largely dronized armed forces, one will probably move on inexorably from a study of psychic traumas linked to violence personally suffered to a study of psychic wounds linked to violence personally perpetrated. p. 112 !!!!!!
. . . theory of the repugnance generated by killing. The closer the human target, the greater the initial resistance that needs to be overcome in order to kill it; conversely the greater the distance, the less difficult it is to perform the act. 115
. . . it ensures that the operator will never see his victim seeing him doing what he does to him. p. 118
It is a setting apart oneself and the crime one commits. * * * One sets something aside and forgets that one has set it aside, one compartmentalizes -- and " that faculty of setting apart makes all crimes permissible. p. 124
If there is anything new about the situation, it might lie in the fact that the practical quasi invulnerability of the dominant camp was, at the end of the twentieth centur, set up as the dominant ethical and political norm. p. 127
In the name of preserving military lives, the risk of producing more casualties among the civilians was accepted, even though it was those very civilians whom the operation was designed to protect. p. 129
Military Ethics of Fighting Terror. -- The most radical of their attacks concerned the principle of noncombatant conflicts. p. 131 (ethics and law of armed conflicts) !!!!!
Hannah Arendt "Politically, the weakness of the argument has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget very quickly that they chose evil." p. 139
How could it be possible to see combatants by means of weapon that rules out combat? p. 144-5
. . . insidious switch from the category of "combatants" to that of "suspected militants." p. 145 !!!!!
poisons (use) . . . what was forbidden was the use of a weapon that deprived the enemy of the freedom to defend himself.p. 159
The killing is allowed only because it is a matter of killing each other. p. 161
The old model of an army opf citizens gave way to a "market army." p. 192
. . . this (drone) is a weapon that spares its "combatant" from having to enter into combat. * * *
The theoretical principle that Kant formulates here concerns what a state may not make its citizens do. The principle of citizenship forbids the state from ordering its soldiers to assassinate an enemy. . . . p. 196
Not in our name/ will you invade countries, / bomb civilians, kill more children,/ letting history take its course/ over the graves of the nameless. p. 201 fn. Not in Our Name, "pledge of resistance," 2001, www.notinourname.net/index.php?option... p.201
The theoretical principle Kant formulates here concerns what a state may not make its citizens do. The principle of citizenship forbids the state from ordering its soldiers to assassinate an enemy. p. 196 !!!!!!
. . . anti-drone clothing p. 204
Psychologically, Remote Wars (with remotely manned vehicles [rmv]) are easy to conceal and the U. S. Military has to tell no one. p. 224
from Science for the People from 1973 If, during peace time a citizen does not support war against the Enemy, that that individual is a subversive. p. 225
It must be remembered that . . . bombing is a terror weapon. p. 227 !!!!!!~
. . . the rights typically associated with being in armed conflict go up in smoke. p. 18
When you can hear the drone circling in the sky, you think it might strike you. We're always scared. We always have this fear in our head. p. 44
. . . the strike is made "without knowing the precise identity of the individuals targeted." It depends solely on their behavior, which seen from the sky, appears to "correspond to a 'signature' of pre-identified behavior that the United States links to militant activity." Today, strikes of this type, against unknown suspects, appear to constitute the majority of cases." p. 45 !!!!!!
According to the military and the
CIA, it is because we can aim at our targets with precision that we can strike them down wherever we choose, even outside any war zone. p. 57 !!!!!
By dying with his victim, coagulating both crime and punishment within a single action, he makes punishment impossible and thereby degactivates the fundamental resort of a form of justice conceived in the penal mode. p. 88
"If our technology is new, the desire to take out one's enemies from a safe distance is anything but." p. 93
The drone is the weapon of an amnesiac postcolonial violence. p. 95
In other words, bravery consists in doing the dirty work (drone operator). p. 102
So the media buzz around the suffering of drone operators was without foundation. Military psychologists discovered no trace of post-traumatic stress disorder. p. 110
In a state supplied with largely dronized armed forces, one will probably move on inexorably from a study of psychic traumas linked to violence personally suffered to a study of psychic wounds linked to violence personally perpetrated. p. 112 !!!!!!
. . . theory of the repugnance generated by killing. The closer the human target, the greater the initial resistance that needs to be overcome in order to kill it; conversely the greater the distance, the less difficult it is to perform the act. 115
. . . it ensures that the operator will never see his victim seeing him doing what he does to him. p. 118
It is a setting apart oneself and the crime one commits. * * * One sets something aside and forgets that one has set it aside, one compartmentalizes -- and " that faculty of setting apart makes all crimes permissible. p. 124
If there is anything new about the situation, it might lie in the fact that the practical quasi invulnerability of the dominant camp was, at the end of the twentieth centur, set up as the dominant ethical and political norm. p. 127
In the name of preserving military lives, the risk of producing more casualties among the civilians was accepted, even though it was those very civilians whom the operation was designed to protect. p. 129
Military Ethics of Fighting Terror. -- The most radical of their attacks concerned the principle of noncombatant conflicts. p. 131 (ethics and law of armed conflicts) !!!!!
Hannah Arendt "Politically, the weakness of the argument has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget very quickly that they chose evil." p. 139
How could it be possible to see combatants by means of weapon that rules out combat? p. 144-5
. . . insidious switch from the category of "combatants" to that of "suspected militants." p. 145 !!!!!
poisons (use) . . . what was forbidden was the use of a weapon that deprived the enemy of the freedom to defend himself.p. 159
The killing is allowed only because it is a matter of killing each other. p. 161
The old model of an army opf citizens gave way to a "market army." p. 192
. . . this (drone) is a weapon that spares its "combatant" from having to enter into combat. * * *
The theoretical principle that Kant formulates here concerns what a state may not make its citizens do. The principle of citizenship forbids the state from ordering its soldiers to assassinate an enemy. . . . p. 196
Not in our name/ will you invade countries, / bomb civilians, kill more children,/ letting history take its course/ over the graves of the nameless. p. 201 fn. Not in Our Name, "pledge of resistance," 2001, www.notinourname.net/index.php?option... p.201
The theoretical principle Kant formulates here concerns what a state may not make its citizens do. The principle of citizenship forbids the state from ordering its soldiers to assassinate an enemy. p. 196 !!!!!!
. . . anti-drone clothing p. 204
Psychologically, Remote Wars (with remotely manned vehicles [rmv]) are easy to conceal and the U. S. Military has to tell no one. p. 224
from Science for the People from 1973 If, during peace time a citizen does not support war against the Enemy, that that individual is a subversive. p. 225
It must be remembered that . . . bombing is a terror weapon. p. 227 !!!!!!~
April 10, 2024
In "A Theory of the Drone," philosopher Grégoire Chamayou offers a thought-provoking examination of the ethical and constitutional implications of drone warfare, a subject that has sparked intense debate in both political circles and the public sphere. Chamayou's work provides a unique philosophical perspective on the profound changes brought about by the use of drones in modern warfare, shedding light on a topic that has received inadequate attention amidst the media frenzy.
Chamayou argues that drones represent a significant departure from traditional military strategies, marking a fundamental transformation in the laws of war. By enabling states to conduct drone warfare across a global, mobile battlefield, drones challenge conventional notions of combat and redefine the boundaries of military conflict. He contends that the proliferation of remote-controlled flying weapons extends far beyond the justifications provided by previous administrations, such as George W. Bush's war on terro,of particular concern is Chamayou's exploration of the shift towards secretive, targeted assassinations of individuals with big drone like dji flycart 30, facilitated by the use of drones. China with dji enterprise drones look forreward This transformation, he asserts, has profound implications for democratic societies, as it removes warfare from public scrutiny and democratic oversight. As drones become increasingly prevalent in military operations, the traditional distinction between combatants and civilians blurs, raising fundamental questions about the nature of democracy and the morality of modern warfare, Chamayou's philosophical analysis challenges readers to confront the ethical complexities of drone technology and its impact on democratic principles. This book is a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the far-reaching implications of dji drone on contemporary warfare and the future of democracy.
August 18, 2022
What are the implications - the ethical, moral, social, economic and legal implications - of using drones to fight wars? This is the question Chamayou tackles in his “A theory of the Drone.” Methodically, he lays out the arguments made for drone warfare and then carefully dissects them in order to reveal the gruesome implications they would lead to if those arguments were to be taken to their logical conclusions.
I really liked Chamayou’s questioning of the fundamentals. Perhaps the strongest argument we get to hear for drones is that they are precision weapons that cause less damage. But less damage compared to what? “[If] Dresden is considered the pertinent standard,” Chamayou contends, “any military procedure will successfully pass the test [of precision].” A drone missile has an injury radius of 20 metres. How meaningful is this precision, really, if 1,200 square metres of area surrounding the hit is affected by the strike? It truly is, in Chamayou’s words, a “fictitious world,” where a strike wounding all within a 20 metre radius can be considered precise.
Another argument given for drones is that they save lives. But whose lives are being saved? Certainly not those upon whom the weapon is being used. The lives being saved are those of the aggressor who is no longer required to take risks. Underpinning this logic of saved lives, Chamayou highlights, is a value judgement that one set of lives (ours) is more valuable than the another set of lives (theirs).
But there is a deeper implication here. Drones can indeed be seen to reduce the social, economic, and increasingly - as a result of a careful PR campaign - the ethical cost of armed conflict. That means an aggressor has much less to lose on all fronts and is thus at more ease as opposed to less, in carrying out his acts of aggression if he so desires. Thus, the US can get away with hundreds of drone strikes without ruffling so much as a few feathers but were it to conduct a similar number of operations involving personnel, it probably would have to face significant domestic opposition.
5/5
I really liked Chamayou’s questioning of the fundamentals. Perhaps the strongest argument we get to hear for drones is that they are precision weapons that cause less damage. But less damage compared to what? “[If] Dresden is considered the pertinent standard,” Chamayou contends, “any military procedure will successfully pass the test [of precision].” A drone missile has an injury radius of 20 metres. How meaningful is this precision, really, if 1,200 square metres of area surrounding the hit is affected by the strike? It truly is, in Chamayou’s words, a “fictitious world,” where a strike wounding all within a 20 metre radius can be considered precise.
Another argument given for drones is that they save lives. But whose lives are being saved? Certainly not those upon whom the weapon is being used. The lives being saved are those of the aggressor who is no longer required to take risks. Underpinning this logic of saved lives, Chamayou highlights, is a value judgement that one set of lives (ours) is more valuable than the another set of lives (theirs).
But there is a deeper implication here. Drones can indeed be seen to reduce the social, economic, and increasingly - as a result of a careful PR campaign - the ethical cost of armed conflict. That means an aggressor has much less to lose on all fronts and is thus at more ease as opposed to less, in carrying out his acts of aggression if he so desires. Thus, the US can get away with hundreds of drone strikes without ruffling so much as a few feathers but were it to conduct a similar number of operations involving personnel, it probably would have to face significant domestic opposition.
5/5
December 3, 2023
3.5 Stars!
“A place of disbelief, confusion and sadness.”
Is how one person describes the space where drone operators work from. This book takes a wider and considered approach on the drone (Unarmed Aerial Vehicle), tracing its origins away back to early 20th Century.
“Months of monotony and milliseconds of mayhem.”
Obama will be remembered for many things, whether it was prosecuting whistle blowers on an unprecedented scale, bailing out the banks at the expense of millions of the disillusioned who voted him in, and of course his escalating drone use which helped murder thousands of innocent civilians in some of the poorest countries on the planet.
These weapons of war have not just been deployed in war zones such as Afghanistan but also countries officially at peace such as Somalia, Yemen and mostly in Pakistan, where CIA drones carry out on average one strike every four days. Exact numbers are hard to clarify but in Pakistan alone, estimate the number of deaths between 2004 and 2012 vary from 2,640 to 3,474.
Wishing to know where, when and how it all ends, the NGO Human Rights Watch put to Obama in 2010,
“The notion that the entire world is automatically by extension a battleground in which the laws of war are applicable is contrary to international law. How does the administration define the ‘global battlefield’…? ”
This starts off strongly but definitely loses a lot of momentum by the time it gets half-way through and you start to feel like you are retreading the same ground, but still Chamayou does a thorough job of this and he makes some good points, raises some very uncomfortable questions.
“A place of disbelief, confusion and sadness.”
Is how one person describes the space where drone operators work from. This book takes a wider and considered approach on the drone (Unarmed Aerial Vehicle), tracing its origins away back to early 20th Century.
“Months of monotony and milliseconds of mayhem.”
Obama will be remembered for many things, whether it was prosecuting whistle blowers on an unprecedented scale, bailing out the banks at the expense of millions of the disillusioned who voted him in, and of course his escalating drone use which helped murder thousands of innocent civilians in some of the poorest countries on the planet.
These weapons of war have not just been deployed in war zones such as Afghanistan but also countries officially at peace such as Somalia, Yemen and mostly in Pakistan, where CIA drones carry out on average one strike every four days. Exact numbers are hard to clarify but in Pakistan alone, estimate the number of deaths between 2004 and 2012 vary from 2,640 to 3,474.
Wishing to know where, when and how it all ends, the NGO Human Rights Watch put to Obama in 2010,
“The notion that the entire world is automatically by extension a battleground in which the laws of war are applicable is contrary to international law. How does the administration define the ‘global battlefield’…? ”
This starts off strongly but definitely loses a lot of momentum by the time it gets half-way through and you start to feel like you are retreading the same ground, but still Chamayou does a thorough job of this and he makes some good points, raises some very uncomfortable questions.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews