Dogs and Anzacs day celebrations, should dogs go to war?
There seems to be a lot of awareness about not using dogs in cosmetic testing anymore, but is that how far our ethical consideration should reach?
Anzac day dogs, and what they are trained forDogs are not regularly associated with bravery awards in the Australian military, but again America likes to glorify any of their fallen. The dogs that go to war are typically guard type dogs that can attack the enemy and there are those with great noses that are trained to sniff out explosives and money.
The reason that these sniffer dogs are still used as cannon fodder is that they don't have a voice, they can't say no, and human scientist have not built detection machines that are anywhere near the quality of a dogs nose at detecting whatever contraband it has been trained to detect.
The issue for dogs of course is that while many rats and mice have been saved from unethical science testing, dogs generally go to war with great expectations and blessing of the Defence propaganda machine. Their immediate handlers often form strong and affectionate bonds with their dogs, but it still doesn't lower the risk of a dog being killed. Anyone got statistics on how many dogs have died (or are harmed - definitely mentally) in modern war conflicts?
There are groups organised that question the validity of some wars, as well as why Australia are involved in certain conflicts (often wars that back up America or sure up Oil supply) and these vocal groups protest in vein (the PM seems to have final say) about whether we should be involved in wars. But that is it, there is virtually NO question that dogs should be supporting our soldiers in often questionable war conflicts.
And this is the only reason why I tend to not to hit the LIKE button on Fb marketing ads for a glorified dog death in the line of duty. Because I love the dogs, but don't believe that we should be experimenting with the dogs in war.