This article accurately sums up the issues raised by mother surrounding military technology. 

The area of impact this article concerns is Politics and Government. With advanced military technology being sold by Russia; the political fears have been brought up involving who should and shouldn’t be allowed to purchase weapons (Iran and Syria in this case); as well as how weapons should be used. 

Most importantly though, various Social and Ethical issues are being brought up. Firstly, the issue of Reliability comes into place. What if a weapon were to malfunction? It could destroy our own country, inadvertently hit another, and potentially kill millions of people. Secondly, there is the issue of control. Who should be the ones controlling military technology? My mother feared the idea of “too many mad powerbrokers”, and if war-hungry rulers of countries decide to exploit the technology; the consequences could be huge. Not only would there be millions of deaths upon attack; but wars on a global scale could be triggered as well. Finally, there is the issue of People and Machines. In my mother’s interview, she thought technology was “good, provided people don’t become overdependent.” But what if rulers of countries become dependent on weaponry. Instead of negotiating with other countries; they simply initiate global strikes?

Finally, there is the idea of IT Systems In A Social Context. This article goes under “Integrated Systems” in terms of “Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems”. The ones who would be benefitting from these advanced weapons would be Russia (as the vendors), and Iran/Syria as the customers. The advantages of owning these weapons are that the country can use them for defense if needed. 

However, the disadvantage surrounding these advanced weapons are that they may poorly used. What would happen if Russia sold advanced weapons to an unstable dictator? The consequences could be on a global scale. 

To overcome these problems; sellers of weapons need to carefully analyze whether it is ethical to sell weapons to particular countries or not. But who should have the position to decide whether it’s OK to sell weapons to a particular country in the first place. At one point in the article, Evgeny Khorisko; a spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington makes the statement that, “Russia is against any military aid to Georgia and would like to see that country demilitarized.”

Should Russia be able to decide who is allowed and not allowed to own weapons? After all they are the sellers and manufacturers; so it initially seems as if they have every right in the world to. However, are they thinking in an ethically balanced manner. If other countries are concerned by Russia’s sale of weaponry (Moscow in this case), shouldn’t Russia be more concerned when selling weapons?

Selling weaponry is not like selling food. The world is at stake when weapons are sold. Abuse of power can lead to consequences of devastating proportions; and could permanently throw the world off balance.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!