What do you think?
Rate this book
Is Remote Warfare Moral?: Weighing Issues of Life and Death from 7,000 Miles
America is at an important turning point. Remote warfare is not just a mainstay of post–9/11 wars, it is a harbinger of what lies ahead—a future of high-tech, artificial intelligence–enabled, and autonomous weapons systems that raise a host of new ethical questions. Most fundamentally, is remote warfare moral? And if so, why?
Joseph O. Chapa, with unique credentials as Air Force officer, Predator pilot, and doctorate in moral philosophy, serves as our guide to understanding this future, able to engage in both the language of military operations and the language of moral philosophy.
Through gripping accounts of remote pilots making life-and-death decisions and analysis of high-profile cases such as the killing of Iranian high government official General Qasem Soleimani, Chapa examines remote warfare within the context of the just war tradition, virtue, moral psychology, and moral responsibility. He develops the principles we should use to evaluate its morality, especially as pilots apply human judgment in morally complex combat situations. Moving on to the bigger picture, he examines how the morality of human decisions in remote war is situated within the broader moral context of US foreign policy and the future of warfare.
Joseph O. Chapa, with unique credentials as Air Force officer, Predator pilot, and doctorate in moral philosophy, serves as our guide to understanding this future, able to engage in both the language of military operations and the language of moral philosophy.
Through gripping accounts of remote pilots making life-and-death decisions and analysis of high-profile cases such as the killing of Iranian high government official General Qasem Soleimani, Chapa examines remote warfare within the context of the just war tradition, virtue, moral psychology, and moral responsibility. He develops the principles we should use to evaluate its morality, especially as pilots apply human judgment in morally complex combat situations. Moving on to the bigger picture, he examines how the morality of human decisions in remote war is situated within the broader moral context of US foreign policy and the future of warfare.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published July 5, 2022
8 people are currently reading
1282 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
February 22, 2023
A thoughtful and thought-provoking book (with an unexpected Benedict Cumberbatch shoutout <3)––in all seriousness, made me miss being in a polisci classroom, this felt like something we'd have read and spent time discussing in the cyber strategy & international politics or ethical dimensions of int pol courses I took last year. Chapa introduces myriad angles and lenses through which to look at remote warfare's past, present, and potential future as well as the misconceptions that surround its use.
March 24, 2022
Weighing Issues of Life and Death from 7000 miles. The question on Morality is asked, but I don't know that it is necessarily answered or that Joseph Chapa aims to answer the question. The author presents arguments and real world examples in his exposition but still leaves the door wide open for the insight of the reader.
This is a study in ethics and some philosophy. The reality is that not only remote warfare is here to stay, it will continue to evolve and change the way we fight and so will the questions.
This book is a very interesting read and I'm glad I had the chance to read it. It certainly got me thinking.
Thank you PublicAffairs and Goodreads Giveaways for my ARC Copy.
This is a study in ethics and some philosophy. The reality is that not only remote warfare is here to stay, it will continue to evolve and change the way we fight and so will the questions.
This book is a very interesting read and I'm glad I had the chance to read it. It certainly got me thinking.
Thank you PublicAffairs and Goodreads Giveaways for my ARC Copy.
April 8, 2023
I give this book a high rating because the topic is important and challenging, and while I don't wholeheartedly agree with the author, it was interesting to see a military insider's academic and methodical approach to a problem which, really, I wish we didn't need to think about.
He unpacks the paradoxes and oxymorons of "moral warfare" from many different angles. Is it "cowardly" to use a drone in battle when you are safe in a bunker 7000 miles away? Are drone crews detached from the violence they cause, or are they even more intimately involved, because they are inches from the screens showing high resolution images of the scene? What sort of effect does it have on them, psychologically, to be participating in a war zone, 9 to 5, then going home to their families for dinner? These are interesting questions.
As for the answers -- well they aren't easy to begin with. I think the approach the author takes, which feel thorough and scholarly, is one that you could imagine President Obama and his advisors taking into account as they shifted American policy to rely heavily on remote technology in Afghanistan. The justification is that the improved accuracy and precision of drone weapons allows war to be conducted with less collateral damage to civilians, and less risk to friendly forces. Much is made of examples where drone crews, with their improved visibility, and the cool objectivity they have from not being in personal danger, are able to "save lives", by waiting for the right moment, correcting a mis-identified target, or calling off the strike altogether. Not a lot is said about the cases where it doesn't work out so well, or the effects to people on the ground after an intentional strike.
The author acknowledges the paradoxes involved in "moral warfare", and lays out a good framework for thinking about it. He's a sane, sober person, though, and he doesn't take it far enough. On page 94, he talks about the dilemma of the Air Force doctors and psychologists in World War II, whose "duty was to keep men healthy and sane enough to kill for their country." This is straight out of Catch-22. Chapa is like Tappman, the chaplain who is a right thinking, intelligent and sensitive person. He sympathizes with Yossarian, but can't offer him a way out of the madness. He doesn't have the tools or the influence.
Chapa considers the concept of the morality of remote warfare only within the context of war, sidestepping the morality of war itself, which, he says, is a problem for the people who decide to wage the war -- which, in principle, in a democracy, is us. Ouch.
At the end of the book, he brushes on the the problem that scares me the most, and in a way, this is the essence of the morality of war -- what goes around, comes around. He seems to have misgivings about the use of drones in the US assassination of Soleimani, the Iranian General, on the legal grounds that while he may have been a "bad guy", we weren't at war with Iran, so he was not fair game. After all, how would we like it if our leaders were targeted in the same way. Well, the problem is that that's all too feasible. Remote weapons are not expensive, and while sophisticated, the technology is all too easily accessible to everyone, regardless of who you might think the good guys are. God help us all.
He unpacks the paradoxes and oxymorons of "moral warfare" from many different angles. Is it "cowardly" to use a drone in battle when you are safe in a bunker 7000 miles away? Are drone crews detached from the violence they cause, or are they even more intimately involved, because they are inches from the screens showing high resolution images of the scene? What sort of effect does it have on them, psychologically, to be participating in a war zone, 9 to 5, then going home to their families for dinner? These are interesting questions.
As for the answers -- well they aren't easy to begin with. I think the approach the author takes, which feel thorough and scholarly, is one that you could imagine President Obama and his advisors taking into account as they shifted American policy to rely heavily on remote technology in Afghanistan. The justification is that the improved accuracy and precision of drone weapons allows war to be conducted with less collateral damage to civilians, and less risk to friendly forces. Much is made of examples where drone crews, with their improved visibility, and the cool objectivity they have from not being in personal danger, are able to "save lives", by waiting for the right moment, correcting a mis-identified target, or calling off the strike altogether. Not a lot is said about the cases where it doesn't work out so well, or the effects to people on the ground after an intentional strike.
The author acknowledges the paradoxes involved in "moral warfare", and lays out a good framework for thinking about it. He's a sane, sober person, though, and he doesn't take it far enough. On page 94, he talks about the dilemma of the Air Force doctors and psychologists in World War II, whose "duty was to keep men healthy and sane enough to kill for their country." This is straight out of Catch-22. Chapa is like Tappman, the chaplain who is a right thinking, intelligent and sensitive person. He sympathizes with Yossarian, but can't offer him a way out of the madness. He doesn't have the tools or the influence.
Chapa considers the concept of the morality of remote warfare only within the context of war, sidestepping the morality of war itself, which, he says, is a problem for the people who decide to wage the war -- which, in principle, in a democracy, is us. Ouch.
At the end of the book, he brushes on the the problem that scares me the most, and in a way, this is the essence of the morality of war -- what goes around, comes around. He seems to have misgivings about the use of drones in the US assassination of Soleimani, the Iranian General, on the legal grounds that while he may have been a "bad guy", we weren't at war with Iran, so he was not fair game. After all, how would we like it if our leaders were targeted in the same way. Well, the problem is that that's all too feasible. Remote weapons are not expensive, and while sophisticated, the technology is all too easily accessible to everyone, regardless of who you might think the good guys are. God help us all.
January 26, 2025
It has been a while since I’ve felt so compelled to share comments on a book that are of much substance.
Dr. Chapa examines the history of war ethics and provides greater context for the remote warfare (namely infamous Predator & Reaper weaponized surveillance aircraft). At the end of his thorough examination of USAF use of remote weapons, he is essentially arguing that it is perhaps a more morally acceptable way to wage war than ground forces. This is partly because he finds remote operators/crews are empowered to stop the ball rolling even after a strike has been called in and benefit from the clarity of mind associated with their physical safety.
Almost all of his examples come from the US wars against Al Qaeda and ISIS, from the perspective of US & UK troops. A few times Dr. Chapa mentions a list of countries known to use this technology - US, UK, Israel - but only speaks once (in four sentences, no less) of Israel’s weapons. No mention to be found of Israel’s decades of use of Palestine as a testing ground for its surveillance, artillery & remote weapons technology. He mentions how soldiers reduce enemy combatants to a dehumanized subspecies in order to make bearing the moral injury of killing easier. However, Dr. Chapa does not apparently feel the need to discus how growing up in a civilian society that consistently and brutally dehumanizes a group of people can affect the ethics of remote warfare against that group.
I agree with the argument that remote operators are capable of making honorable and courageous martial decisions. As Dr. Chapa points out, just because one develops the capacity for loyalty and mercy while in the military does not mean one cannot also learn to be merciful with one’s children and loyal to their civilian community. Chapter 6 was thought provoking, making a more personal case for remote warfare, if incomplete.
I do, however, find seriously lacking the assumption that the conflicts in which the US and UK (and Israel, by omission) have participated in the last 70 odd years were ethical or morally required, and that future applications will fit that context as well. Furthermore, I find it to be irresponsible and somewhat of a cop-out to:
A) do no more than briefly mention at the end of the book that AI will change the game yet again
B) not further explore the fact that the West may find remote warfare “acceptable” and “moral” because it has until recently been the only group in possession of such technology (as soon as “the bad guys” get it, it’s not so convenient and “riskless”, huh?)
C) again, not include ANY mention of Israel’s status as The global playground for US-sanctioned & -financed weapons tech industry, violence perpetrated against Palestinians (very well established knowledge, even in 2022 when this book was published) using the very technology he spends the book investigating and eventually defending.
Explicitly because of these gaps and the tone shift in the last two chapters (6&7), I don’t think it’s possible to read this book as a largely scholarly investigation.
Dr. Chapa examines the history of war ethics and provides greater context for the remote warfare (namely infamous Predator & Reaper weaponized surveillance aircraft). At the end of his thorough examination of USAF use of remote weapons, he is essentially arguing that it is perhaps a more morally acceptable way to wage war than ground forces. This is partly because he finds remote operators/crews are empowered to stop the ball rolling even after a strike has been called in and benefit from the clarity of mind associated with their physical safety.
Almost all of his examples come from the US wars against Al Qaeda and ISIS, from the perspective of US & UK troops. A few times Dr. Chapa mentions a list of countries known to use this technology - US, UK, Israel - but only speaks once (in four sentences, no less) of Israel’s weapons. No mention to be found of Israel’s decades of use of Palestine as a testing ground for its surveillance, artillery & remote weapons technology. He mentions how soldiers reduce enemy combatants to a dehumanized subspecies in order to make bearing the moral injury of killing easier. However, Dr. Chapa does not apparently feel the need to discus how growing up in a civilian society that consistently and brutally dehumanizes a group of people can affect the ethics of remote warfare against that group.
I agree with the argument that remote operators are capable of making honorable and courageous martial decisions. As Dr. Chapa points out, just because one develops the capacity for loyalty and mercy while in the military does not mean one cannot also learn to be merciful with one’s children and loyal to their civilian community. Chapter 6 was thought provoking, making a more personal case for remote warfare, if incomplete.
I do, however, find seriously lacking the assumption that the conflicts in which the US and UK (and Israel, by omission) have participated in the last 70 odd years were ethical or morally required, and that future applications will fit that context as well. Furthermore, I find it to be irresponsible and somewhat of a cop-out to:
A) do no more than briefly mention at the end of the book that AI will change the game yet again
B) not further explore the fact that the West may find remote warfare “acceptable” and “moral” because it has until recently been the only group in possession of such technology (as soon as “the bad guys” get it, it’s not so convenient and “riskless”, huh?)
C) again, not include ANY mention of Israel’s status as The global playground for US-sanctioned & -financed weapons tech industry, violence perpetrated against Palestinians (very well established knowledge, even in 2022 when this book was published) using the very technology he spends the book investigating and eventually defending.
Explicitly because of these gaps and the tone shift in the last two chapters (6&7), I don’t think it’s possible to read this book as a largely scholarly investigation.
October 29, 2022
I don't know who Chapa wrote this book for, exactly; given his military service history and current job with the Air Force, it seems aimed largely at addressing drone crews sitting on the ground, often within the continental US, killing bad guys half-a-world away. Time and again, he draws parallels between these modern warriors and their historic war-fighter counterparts from centuries ago, as well as to traditional combat troops. If anything, these men and women have a much harder experience with their chosen violent profession than previous warriors, becoming metaphorically closer and more intimate with their targets over time than that SEAL with an A4.
A secondary audience, certainly, is the general public, so often uncomfortable with the concept of 'remote' war. A third may well be defense contractor salespeople; this book would make a nice Christmas gift to that particular Congressperson on the fence about 'scary-looking drones' and 'autonomous weapons.'
"Remote" warfare, however, is not the sea-change it is made out to be. The missileer in a hardened silo in Wyoming has been ready to conduct "push-button war" on a global scale since the 1950s. The same is true, at its core, with Artificial Intelligence in war: the buried mine that blows up 20 years after it was planted is a form of manufactured 'intelligence', if mechanical and not digital. "Sit here, unmonitored, and wait to carry out a given instruction when certain parameters are met: ie, when a plate detects a certain amount of pressure, blow up."
Chapa opens his book with an example of a drone pilot who is given a directive, but who ultimately makes his choice based on his interpretation of the facts and his own conscience. Any society with a military will always be asking the men and women in uniform to be ready to do terrible things, regardless of the weapon at hand, the distance involved, or the immediacy of the violence. Remove the word 'Remote' from the title, and you have the real crux of the matter; the rest is just about the tools used.
A secondary audience, certainly, is the general public, so often uncomfortable with the concept of 'remote' war. A third may well be defense contractor salespeople; this book would make a nice Christmas gift to that particular Congressperson on the fence about 'scary-looking drones' and 'autonomous weapons.'
"Remote" warfare, however, is not the sea-change it is made out to be. The missileer in a hardened silo in Wyoming has been ready to conduct "push-button war" on a global scale since the 1950s. The same is true, at its core, with Artificial Intelligence in war: the buried mine that blows up 20 years after it was planted is a form of manufactured 'intelligence', if mechanical and not digital. "Sit here, unmonitored, and wait to carry out a given instruction when certain parameters are met: ie, when a plate detects a certain amount of pressure, blow up."
Chapa opens his book with an example of a drone pilot who is given a directive, but who ultimately makes his choice based on his interpretation of the facts and his own conscience. Any society with a military will always be asking the men and women in uniform to be ready to do terrible things, regardless of the weapon at hand, the distance involved, or the immediacy of the violence. Remove the word 'Remote' from the title, and you have the real crux of the matter; the rest is just about the tools used.
June 19, 2023
Just finished “Is Remote Warfare Moral” by Joseph O. Chapa. While he makes some very interesting historical arguments as to why we shouldn’t necessarily tag drone attacks as immoral or truly novel…..I think, at times, he relies a bit too much on anecdotes from Predator and Reaper pilots to make his points. I also doubt these arguments will hold much water once other nations start using their own version of drone aircraft against us here in the US.
January 14, 2023
I wish Goodreads had a ten star rating function instead of 5 so I could draw out subtle differences relatively ranking the 90% of books I give 4 stars.
This book is a solid 7/10.
This book is a solid 7/10.
May 12, 2024
Thought provoking yet attainable. I read it for a book club and it sparked a great discussion.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews