Recording Naval Valour and Service i on 2014f with Mike Car
Ho: Expanding Global Role for China's Navyi
=r 7. "• T*^«JU. *.£# ^
dressinq Indonesia's Maritime Needs: Jokbwi's Ground and Sea-level Challenges
NEW NAME, SAME HIGH PERFORMANCE
Saab Systems has been providing high quality products, services and solutions to the Australian and New Zealand Defence Forces for over 25 years. We have been contributing to the defence of the region since the 1930s and continue to win awards for the delivery of military and civil security programs. Building on this reputation the company name has changed to Saab Australia, to reflect our increasingly diversified business that spans the defence, security and traffic management markets and our future product offerings as part of the global Saab group.
Issue 153 Letter to the Editor
truck and the upper yardarm as in the drawing.
I have no idea why these differences were peculiar to Sydney but they make for very obvious identifiers.
69 Dear Editor,
In the latest issue oiHeadmark, at the bottom of page 17, there is a line drawing titled HMAS Sydney. Unfortunately it is not Sydney but is either of her sister ships PERTH or HOBART.
Seen beam on, Sydney had a very prominent boom projecting forward from the compass platform to which was secured the lower end of a foredown wireless aerial. In addition, the crow's nest was at the top of the foremast and not halfway between the
HMASArunta (right) detaches from HMASSuccessoffthecoastof Phillip Island, Victoria, after completing a successful replenishment at sea.
DMS MARITIME-LOCKHEED MARTIN -AUSTAL
SAABSYSTEMS-AUSTRALIAN DEEENCECREDIT UNION
RAYTHEON AUSTRALIA - THALESNAVAL GROUP The Bureaucratization of War: Moral challenges exemplified by the covert lethal drone
Adapting Navy Training Processes to the Rapid Evolution ofCommunication & Learning Technologies - a Design Pattern Approach to Training Design 15
General de Gaulle, The Dakar Affair and
the Role of HMAS Australia25
A Grand Strategic Framework for Australia-a Maritime Nation 54
Visions from the Vault
Style Notes for Headmark
ANI Membership Application Form 70
front page-.After completing Exerdse Kakadulnthe Northern Australia Exercise Area, HMAS Aruntatook the long way home to Rockingham, Western Australia, to make a series of port visits to eastern cities.
After visiting Sydney, PortArthurand Hobart, the ship continued her transit to Western Australia with visits to
Melbourne and Eremantle before participating In the centenary of the ANZAC departure at Albany, Western Australia.
Issue Number 153
Printed in Australia ISSN 1833-6531
Design & DTP by Diane Bricknell firstname.lastname@example.org
Journal of the Australian Naval Institute
The Bureaucratization of War: Moral challenges exemplified by the covert lethal drone
his paper interrogates the bureaucratization of war, incarnate in the covert lethal drone. Bureaucracies are criticized typically for their complexity, inefficiency, and inflexibility. The present paper is concerned with their moral indifference. We explore killing, which is so highly administered, so morally remote, and of such scale, that we acknowledge a covert lethal program. This is a bureaucratized program of assassination in contravention of critical human rights.
In the paper this program is seen to compromise the advance of global justice. As well, the bureaucratization of lethal force is seen to dissolve democratic ideals from within. The bureaucracy isolates the citizens from lethal force applied in their name. People are killed, in the name of the State; but without conspicuous justification, or judicial review, and without informed public debate.
The discussion gives an account
of the risk associated with the bureaucratization of the State's lethal power. Exemplified by the covert drone, this is power with formidable reach. It is power as well, which requires great moral sensitivity. Considering the drone program, we identify challenges, which will become more prominent and pressing, as technology advances.
In introduction we consider some of the moral problems which follow from bureaucratization of the State's lethal power. Speaking of bureaucratization, we identify operations embedded in the secretive agencies and undeclared bureaus of the political administration. These operations, though highly administered, are seen to be insufficiently attentive to moral ideas. The covert lethal drone program exemplifies such operations, and points to moral challenges that will only become more prominent, pressing and complex with the advance and proliferation of technology.
Speaking at the National Defense
University at Fort McNair on Thursday May 23 2013, President Obama acknowledged covert drone operations outside declared war zones. The President acknowledged civilian deaths; the inevitable entailment of covert strikes. And, though the President spoke of a diminished terrorist threat, he made it clear the covert lethal drone program would remain intact.
Flown typically by civilians of the Central Intelligence Agency, covert lethal drone operations are seen to yield strategic advantage at negligible cost. Unlike the special forces soldiers, who would otherwise carry out targeted killing, the civilians who fly secret robotic missions bear no evident physical risk. Their victims are ambushed, innominate screen images who cannot fight back. The bureaucracy deploys the drone to kill, without seeming consequence. But, there is significant moral risk and cost.
The employment of covert lethal
Ajet-powered drone with a comprehensive suite of weapons (Lockheed Martin)
Journal of the Australian Naval Institute
drones by the United States was pragmatic, a comprehensible case of post September 11 dirty hands. The continuance of these operations appears less vindicable. The United States must now set the security offered by covert drones, against the critical human freedoms they efface. The balance struck will define the justice the United States and her allies might hope to uphold and advance. For this reason, policy concerning covert lethal drone operations concerns all nations.1
Exploring the operation of covert lethal drones, this paper looks past questions concerning military action or international law, which have been characteristic of public debate. Analysis does not concern the jus in hello challenges of military drones. Neither is the focus of discussion on the problem of covert political assassination, which in the aftermath of terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, has a new allure and complexity. Rather, this paper confines
its attention to problems entailing from the bureaucratization of lethal force.
Discussion is not about selective or occasional political assassination; specific murders, which might be justified when a single homicide avoids wholesale war. This analysis is about the bureaucratization of covert killing, political execution, killing which has become so highly administered and organized, so impersonal and morally remote, and of such a scale, that we acknowledge a covert lethal drone program. The idea of a program is significant, since it references a schedule, a pattern of killing reduced by "the system" to hum-drum routine, and exemplified by:
A New York Times report (which) showed a president who had weekly meetings with his advisors on 'Terror Tuesdays' to look at profiles of terror suspects much as one would flip through baseball cards, and 'nominate' people (the article says, 'without hand wringing') to be on a kill list.2
This paper peers behind the facade and gloss of political respectability, and behind the routine of schedules and systems. We explore the democracy's use of force as a consequential expression of democracy. Killing by covert drone is killing in the name of the State. But, immersed in the secret bureaucracy, lethal power is without moral sensitivity. This discussion observes how, concealed by officialdom, killing by covert drone is killing without justification, without judicial oversight, and without the informed public debate, which is critical to the collective democratic conscience.
This paper seeks to inform the perspective of all of us who are isolated by the political bureaucracy from the deadly force applied, outside the framework of law3 in our name. We do not address remote and abstract philosopher's questions. The paper asks questions which must be answered, if democracies are to exert constructive