If there’s anything we’ve become better at over the course
of human history, it’s waging war. There
was a time when we were limited to the use of bows and arrows, swords, or
similar weapons. The invention of the
gun made it a bit easier to kill your enemy, but now we have nuclear
weapons. Such weapons of mass destruction
can take out large numbers of people at a time, as well as devastate the
ecology of the area.
It isn’t surprising that science fiction often shows us war
in the future. As much as I hope we eventually
get past our tendency for destruction, it isn’t unrealistic to assume that
warfare will continue to change as we advance technologically.
In Star Wars, The
Empire constructs the Death Star, which is capable of destroying an entire
planet without much problem. Babylon 5 also shows that both the
Vorlons and the Shadows have their own planet killers. These aren’t the only examples of such
technology being used. Never mind the issue
of how you’d begin to power such a device.
How can we ethically justify destroying an entire planet? Would it ever be justifiable? Does it depend upon the level of threat the inhabitants
of that world pose to our own people?
How do we determine whether they are a big enough threat to justify
resorting to such drastic means?
Babylon 5 also shows a kind of brutal planetary assault
at the end of the Narn-Centauri war. The
Centauri used mass drivers to accelerate asteroids to hit the Narn home world. Mass Drivers had been outlawed by every
civilized planet, so this action stirred up a lot of controversy. This assault killed millions of Narns,
destroyed the Narn infrastructure, and wreaked havoc on the environment. How does this compare to an action such as
dropping an atomic bomb? What use of
weaponry is too barbaric? Too
widespread?
Warfare also includes gathering information. We frequently encounter telepaths in science
fiction, who could easily be used as intelligence operatives. Would employing such a method be unethical,
or could it be justified if doing so saves lives? Is there a fundamental difference between
searching someone’s desk for information vs. invading their mind? They are both forms of intrusion, after all,
though one seems a tad more personal than the other.
Various forms of torture could also be used to extract
information from people. The use of
torture is controversial as it is, but time will surely help us develop new and
more effective means of extracting information from unwilling people. In your mind, can torturing someone for
information be justified under certain conditions, or is it always wrong?
