[glloydell]

I'd say it's absolutely vital to have the responsibility in the hands of do have problems with "pushing the kill button", and then provide them with psychological support services to handle that duty.

Giving people with no qualms or moral struggles with taking human life the tools to do so on a massive scale is an absolutely terrifying idea.

[matz1]

Well, it depends on what the main objective of the job is. If it to kill someone then do you really want to give it to someone that have moral struggle?

[glloydell]

I'd argue that the main objective of the job is to achieve the strategic objectives of the country engaged in armed conflict. Indiscriminate killing completely devoid of a moral or ethical framework definitely does not accomplish that objective.

[matz1]

Thats more of a higher level objective and sometimes to achieve that objective, killing people is required.

Yes Indiscriminate killing is a problem but that is a different problem. The article is in regards of actual pushing the button, I'm assuming the killing is already decided after careful judgement .

[glloydell]

It doesn't matter how much care was taken in making the initial judgement if the information using it to reach it is flawed, or if the situation changes in the time between the decision being made and it's execution.

I'd imagine that someone with no qualms about taking human life would be far less likely to confirm the validity and accuracy of those justifications.

I don't think anyone wants drone operators who dismiss a group of children playing near a target because they don't place a value on human life.

[matz1]

>It doesn't matter how much care was taken in making the initial judgement if the information using it to reach it is flawed, or if the situation changes in the time between the decision being made and it's execution.

Of course, thats the leader job to make sure that the information is not flawed and take into account the time decision being made and it's execution.

>I'd imagine that someone with no qualms about taking human life would be far less likely to confirm the validity and accuracy of those justifications

Sure but the solider, during actual combat situation, can't always second guess and debate your commander. There might be simply no time.

The solider utmost job is to execute the action that the leader has ordered.

Thats why you have chain of command, separation of concerns.

If every soldier or drone operator has to do the job of making strategic decision and operating drone at the same time, I think that would be too much cognitive load.

[glloydell]

TL;DR; DoD Manual says subordinates have an obligation to question morality of orders. Lack of empathy is a severe handicap and liability for a soldier.

The DOD is pretty clear on this point ( https://tinyurl.com/yxqfwyrx [link to PDF of the DoD Law of War Manual] )

""" 5.10.2.4 Duty Not to Comply With Clearly Illegal Orders and the Principle of Proportionality. In the context of the principle of distinction, it would often be clear whether a given situation implicates the duty not to comply with clearly illegal orders to commit law of war violations – such as the duty of a subordinate to refrain from complying with an order to attack the civilian population. However, the nuances involved in applying the principle of proportionality could make it more difficult to know whether an order given is clearly illegal. The duty not to comply with orders that are clearly illegal also applies to violations of the principle of proportionality, in particular, the case of a commander who orders subordinates to conduct an attack that is expected to result in civilian casualties that the commander himself or herself acknowledges would be excessive """

You're absolutely right that the ability to make those assessments in the field isn't always going to be there, but that doesn't mean that there is no requirement or need for subordinates to be able to assess orders and actions.

I'm assuming the type of person who has no issue at all with taking life lacks (or has seriously damaged) capacity for empathy. Beyond the basic issues of morality and human decency, someone without the capacity for empathy is severely disadvantaged when it comes to assessment and awareness.

Being able to conceptualize and examine the intellectual and emotional state of another human provides a huge predictive advantage. Assessing someones potential to be a threat is far easier when you can understand what could potentially cause them to justify violence towards you.

To sum up, If you have no qualms with taking life, and you lack the capacity for empathy, you are not properly equipped to serve in the military.