Drones and Distance

The way humans engage in conflict with others has changed over the years, though people haven't changed.  The first reference of human conflict with one another in the history of the world was when Cain struck and killed his brother Abel in a field.  We do not know if Cain wielded a weapon, but it is clear he purposely murdered his brother.  The blood of Abel cried out to God in heaven for divine retribution.

It used to be warring people met their enemy in hand-to-hand combat, using weapons like swords and knives crafted to inflict injury on others.  There have been strategic advances involving fortresses, reinforced gates, shields and armor.  Horses and chariots were utilised to effectively pursue and overwhelm foot soldiers.  Arrows were designed to inflict injuries from afar, and in more recent times catapults were employed.  Whilst physical combat has continued in the fighting ring for sport or in the street for honour, the rise of the firearm changed the scope of warfare.  No longer did a man need to physically grapple with his opponent, hear his voice, or see the whites of his eyes:  from hundreds and thousands of metres away he could be instantly shot dead.  Guerrilla tactics have perfected the concealment of mines and hidden explosives with brutal effect.

In the 17th through 19th centuries in the U.S. offended gentlemen challenged one another to duels, facing off with sword or pistol.  Concerning pistol duels there were rules to be observed like the colour of clothing worn, the distance they were to stand apart, and the amount of shots which could be fired (more than 3 was considered barbaric).  Over the years the ball and musket were replaced by revolvers and magazines; one shot bolt action rifles were made semi-auto and fully automatic to spray bullets faster.  There has been a rapid escalation in the last century in every aspect of warfare.  Nations are engaged in a global race to design killing machines that are faster, stronger, and more powerful:  tanks, aircraft carriers, jet fighters, missiles guided by computers and satellites, nuclear bombs, drones, sonic weapons and even railguns.

The drone translates well to modern sensibilities concerning conflict with comparatively low cost and low personal risk.  An attacker can fly reconnaissance and attack missions remotely from the comfort of an air-conditioned office a world away in a secret and secure location without any risk of being shot or captured.  Heat signatures allow the drones to expose people hiding in pitch darkness.  Drones can deploy missiles which lock onto a location and destroy targets without the one deploying the missile personally seeing or experiencing the horrors of war firsthand.  The victims of drone attacks are the ones who deal with the carnage, pain, and fallout.  It is their family members who have been killed, and their homes that have been destroyed.

I write this not to criticise modern warfare or technology but to use drone attacks as an analogy for the way people approach conflict with social media.  From a secure location, behind the safety of a screen, people can create or escalate conflict without any idea of the damage they are doing or have done to others.  The smell of gunpowder or burning flesh may not fill the air, but with precision missiles are deployed with unloving comments and posts--not to love and edify others--but to humiliate or provoke reactions.  Words can be weaponised to a point, sharpened to inflict maximum damage on others with no real intellectual engagement at all.  Many online interactions fall into the two categories of provocative or reactive from defensive, entrenched positions.  Instead of grappling in a gymnasium with another human being for exercise, debating with friends over dinner at the pub, or simply stopping to listen and consider implications of our claims, we are inclined to allow the drone of social media to carry the payload to obliterate opposition with self-satisfaction.

When we are led by the Holy Spirit, the love of Jesus enables us to navigate the minefield of political and personal posts without harshness, bragging, or gloating.  Secure in our relationship with God and armed with the truth of scripture, we will not give way to the urge to skewer others with the "truth."  What once made us angry and lash out produces grief we take to God in prayer.  No longer is our chief aim to prove we're right and others are wrong but to humbly examine ourselves and walk in light of the Gospel.  If someone does offend us, we ought to first forgive them and then see if our response is of the flesh or the Holy Spirit:  our motive to reach out privately or block them will reveal the truth.  It may be necessary to do what Jesus said in Matthew 18:15:  "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother."  Instead of dropping bombs from afar, we ought to draw near with a hug and handshake.  Even after all these years Proverbs 15:1 has remained true:  "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger."  When provoked it requires the strength of God to submit to speak softly--if at all.