Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Liberal Preferences as an Explanation for Technology Choices. The Case of Military Robots as a Solution to the West’s Casualty Aversion

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Global Politics of Science and Technology - Vol. 2

Part of the book series: Global Power Shift ((GLOBAL))

Abstract

When it comes to choices regarding military technology, many scholars of international relations favor a realist perspective, arguing with “technological imperatives”, “adaptation of technology” and the “security dilemma”. When it comes to military robotics in general and drones in particular, the “technological imperative” seems to be a valid and powerful explanation for the worldwide proliferation of drone technology. What is missing from a realist explanation, however, is why drones become so popular in the first place and why especially Western democracies have been implementing and fostering the development from the very beginning. The text argues that drones and other unmanned military systems offer Western democracies a unique opportunity to implement what has been termed the “New Western Way of War”, i.e. warfare with minimized casualties on their side and reduced civilian casualties on the side of their opponents. So rather than understanding “technology push” and “mission pull” as two contradicting explanations of technology development, the text argues that rather a combination of both offers a comprehensive picture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Depending on which democracy index one uses, either 22 (Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index; =65 %) or 24 (Polity IV; 71 %) out of 34 countries can be seen as democratic.

  2. 2.

    For the case of Israel fighting wars of choice rather than of necessity see Levy (2010a, b).

  3. 3.

    For a short overview of specific democratic behavior see, for example, Sauer and Schörnig (2012: 365–369).

  4. 4.

    James Igoe Walsh suggests that civilian casualties are even more important to the public than those amongst American servicemen or –women (Walsh and James 2012).

  5. 5.

    For the drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia see the numbers presented by the independent Bureau of Investigative Journalism (Bureau of Investigative Journalism 2013).

References

  • Altmann, J. (2013). Arms control for armed uninhabited vehicles: An ethical issue. Ethics and Information Technology, 15(2), 137–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arkin, R. C. (2009). Ethical robots in warfare. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 28(1), 30–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Investigative Journalism. (2013). Drone strikes. Accessed December 18, 2013, from http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/

  • Buzan, B. (1987). An introduction to strategic studies: Military technology and international relations. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, M. W. (1983). Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs (I). Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12(3), 205–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evangelista, M. (1988). Innovation and the arms race. How the United States and the Soviet Union develop new military technologies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eyre, D. P., & Suchman, M. C. (1996). Status, norms, and the proliferation of conventional weapons: An institutional theory approach. In P. Katzenstein (Ed.), The culture of national security. Norms and identity in world politics (pp. 79–113). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fordham, B. O., & Walker, T. C. (2005). Kantian Liberalism, regime type, and military resource allocation: Do democracies spend less? International Studies Quarterly, 45(1), 141–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, L. (2006/2007). Iraq, liberal wars and illiberal containment. Survival, 48(4), 51–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulghum, D. A., & Wall, R. (2004, February 29). Comanche Helicopter program killed. Aviation Week.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geis, A., Müller, H., & Schörnig, N. (Eds.). (2013). The militant face of liberal democracies: Liberal forces for good. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelpi, C. F., Feaver, P. D., & Reifler, J. (2006). Success matters. Casualty sensitivity and the war in Iraq. International Security, 30(3), 7–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, E. O., & Andres, R. B. (1999). Systemic effects of military innovation and diffusion. Security Studies, 8(4), 79–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, C. (2010, August 18). Unmanned unbound. Jane’s Defence Weekly, 22–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Watch. (2012). Losing humanity. The case against killer robots. Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch.

    Google Scholar 

  • IISS. (2011). Unmanned aerial vehicles: Emerging lessons and technologies. In IISS (Ed.), The military balance (pp. 20–26). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1984) [1795]. Zum ewigen Frieden. Stuttgart: Reclam (Translation taken from Perpetual peace: A philosophical essay, translated with Introduction and Notes by M. Campbell Smith, London: George Allen and Unwin, 1917).

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J. (1988). Domestic politics and war. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(4), 653–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, Y. (2010a). The hierarchy of military death. Citizenship Studies, 14(4), 345–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, Y. (2010b). The gap of legitimacies syndrome: A conceptual framework. International Political Science Review, 31(1), 77–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luttwak, E. N. (1995). Toward post-heroic warfare. Foreign Affairs, 74(3), 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1999). Introductory essay and general issues. In D. MacKenzie & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The social shaping of technology (2nd ed., pp. 3–27). Trowbridge: Redwood Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandel, R. (2004). Security, strategy, and the quest for bloodless war. Boulder: Lynne Riener.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrow, J. D. (2007). When do states follow the laws of war? American Political Science Review, 101(3), 559–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, H., & Becker, U. (2008). Technology, nuclear arms control, and democracy: Reflections in the light of democratic peace theory. In M. Evangelista, H. Müller, & N. Schörnig (Eds.), Democracy and security: Preferences, norms and policy-making (pp. 102–119). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, H., & Schörnig, N. (2010). Drohnenkrieg: Die konsequente Fortsetzung der westlichen Revolution in Military Affairs. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 50(2010), 16–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2000). Uninhabited air vehicles. Enabling science for military systems (NMAB-495). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, J. M. (1994). How liberalism produces democratic peace. International Security, 19(2), 87–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Partlow, J. (2010). 13 die as U.S. uses drone to it suspected Afghan insurgents. Accessed December 18, 2013, from http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2010-01-13/world/36822928_1_taliban-safe-house-helmand-insurgents.

  • Reppy, J. (1990). The technological imperative in strategic thought. Journal of Peace Research, 27(1), 101–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resende-Santos, J. (1996). Anarchy and the emulation in military systems. Military organization and technology in South America, 1870–1914. Security Studies, 5(3), 193–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, S. P. (1991). Winning the next war. Innovation and the modern military. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauer, F., & Schörnig, N. (2012). Killer drones – The silver bullet of democratic warfare? Security Dialogue, 43(4), 363–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schooner, S. L. (2008). Why contractor fatalities matter. Parameters, 38(3), 78–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schörnig, N. (2009). In der Opferfalle. Die Bundeswehr und die zunehmenden Gefallenen der Bundeswehr in Afghanistan. Standpunkte 2/2009. Frankfurt: HSFK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schörnig, N. (2013). Unmanned warfare: Towards a neo-interventionist era? In G. Kümmel & B. Giegerich (Eds.), The armed forces: Towards a post-interventionist era (pp. 221–235). Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shachtman, N. (2010). Iran’s Rebotic ‘Ambassador of Death’ is more envoy of annoyance (Updated). Accessed December 18, 2013, from http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/08/irans-ambassador-of-death-drone-is-more-envoy-of-annoyance/

  • Shaw, M. (2005). The new Western way of war. Malden: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinkman, P. D. (2013). Pentagon strikes ‘drone medal’. Accessed October 10, 2013, from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/15/pentagon-strikes-drone-medal

  • Singer, P. W. (2008). Corporate warriors: the rise of the privatized military industry (Updated edition). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. W. (2012). Do drones undermine democracy? Accessed December 18, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/opinion/sunday/do-drones-undermine-democracy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

  • Singer, P. W. (2013). Die Zukunft ist schon da. Die Debatte über Drohnen muss von der Realität ausgehen. Internationale Politik, Mai/Juni, 8–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow, R. (2007). Killer robots. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24(1), 62–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strawser, B. J. (2013). Introduction: The moral landscape of unmanned weapons. In B. J. Strawser (Ed.), Killing by remote control. The ethics of an unmanned military (pp. 3–24). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Suarez, D. (2012). Kill decision. New York: Dutton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taliaferro, J. W. (2000). Security seeking under anarchy. Defensive realism revisited. International Security, 25(3), 128–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Government Accountability Office. (2012). Nonproliferation, agencies could improve information sharing and end-use monitoring on unmanned aerial vehicle exports (US Government Accountability Office Report 12-536). Accessed December 18, 2013, from http://dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/us-gao-_-noproliferation-of-uavs.pdf

  • van Wyk, J.-A., Kinghorn, L., Hepburn, H., Payne, C., & Sham, C. (2007). The international politics of nuclear weapons: A constructivist analysis. South African Journal of Military Studies, 35(1), 23–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallach, W., & Allen, C. (2009). Moral machines: Teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. I. (2012). Do drones change Americans’ views on the use of force? Accessed December 18, 2013, from http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/08/28/do-drones-change-americans-views-on-the-use-of-force/.

  • Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Reading: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. PRIF, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Niklas Schörnig

Authors
  1. Niklas Schörnig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niklas Schörnig .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bonn Center for Global Studies, Bonn, Germany

    Maximilian Mayer

  2. GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Hamburg, Germany

    Mariana Carpes

  3. Institute of Political Science and Sociology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany, Institute of Development Research and Development Policy (IEE), Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany, Bochum, Bonn, Germany

    Ruth Knoblich

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schörnig, N. (2014). Liberal Preferences as an Explanation for Technology Choices. The Case of Military Robots as a Solution to the West’s Casualty Aversion. In: Mayer, M., Carpes, M., Knoblich, R. (eds) The Global Politics of Science and Technology - Vol. 2. Global Power Shift. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55010-2_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation