Are questions surrounding the ethical implications of new military and security technologies easily answered due to universal values?

The assertion that questions surrounding the ethical implications of new military and security technologies are easily answered due to universal values is false. This is because ethical considerations in these contexts are complex and often involve a variety of competing interests, perspectives, and cultural norms that may not align with a singular set of universal values.

Ethics in the military and security sectors often require weighing the potential benefits of new technologies against risks to human rights, privacy, and global security. There are often disagreements about what constitutes an acceptable use of force, the morality of surveillance, and the implications of autonomous weapons, among others. These issues are not easily settled by a consensus on universal values, as interpretations of these values can differ widely across cultures and political contexts.

Consequently, the ethical implications are highly nuanced and context-dependent, necessitating thorough discussions that take into account the diverse perspectives of stakeholders, operational contexts, and potential societal impacts. Each situation can lead to varying ethical conclusions rather than straightforward, universally applicable answers. This complexity underscores why the answer is false.