Military Enhancer Essay

Should the military be allowed to utilize performance enhancers?

When you see the words, ‘super soldier’, what comes to mind? Captain America or Iron Man? Most would say Captain America because of his dashing looks and the super serum that gave him his powers. However, those at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, would rather go with the more realistic iron man. “Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men”, said beautifully by General George S. Patton of the US Army. Well, Mr. Patton’s words may be even more true thanks to the advancements of Nanotechnology. Scientists from America and Europe who study this technology are now researching the implications of creating a suit comprised of nano-sized components

Should technology mainly used for human enhancement be considered for a weapons review? According to article 36 of the Geneva Conventions states “in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, a High Contracting Party is under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of International law applicable to the High Contracting Party”(1977). The only way that protocol would be applicable would be if human enhancement is considered a “weapon”. However, with training, the human soldier could be a weapon. Making it applicable. So by international law, an enhanced human is a weapon. Correspondingly, in the US, human enhancement drugs vary from vaccinations to the programs described before. Making them acceptable and well within policy. Under federal law, an investigational drug must have informed consent from the subject. However, under military law, a service member can be court-martialed if they disobey or refuse to receive enhancement. Which is ethically unsound. However, one must consider why the inoculation was ordered. The drug could possibly protect against biological agents or a ‘super disease’. But, military abuse of such a technology is a possibility. The source is biased as most of the authors that contributed to the article were American and only one being Australian. So, these laws only pertain to USA legislation and not