Drone Wars

In Bradley Strawser’s “Moral Predators,” Strawser argues that “we are obligated to employ uninhabited aerial vehicles (UAVs) weapon systems if it can be shown that their use does not significantly reduce a warfighter’s operational capability.” By their very nature UAVs evoke many ethical questions most of which are addressed by Strawser, who stresses “there is no downside to UAVs.” I would argue there are certainly some downsides to this technology. The aim of this paper is to provide legitimate moral objections to using drones in warfare.

Byman’s tone in this article can be described as defensive. In his argument, Byman attempts to refute the arguments of many Americans that maintain that drones should be eliminated. This is demonstrated in Byman’s response to public criticism that using drones creates more terrorists. He states, “critics...

This brings into question the magnitude and price of the collateral damage from these strikes, that these drones are meant to minimize in the first place. As reports and interviews about the drone strikes are released by the press, more and more information is gathered and more statistics can be developed. An example is the Obama Administration’s “targeted killing”. Many argue that this killing is not so accurate. A report released stating that throughout a specific time frame, that attempts to kill 41 combatants ended up costing the lives of 1,147 people (Friedersdorf 1). This means that the Obama Administration’s supposedly “accurate” drones only have a 4% accuracy (for that given period of time).

Strawser has plunged into the debate by arguing "It's all upside. There's no downside. Both ethically and normatively, there's a tremendous value," he says. "You're not risking the pilot. The pilot is safe. And all the empirical evidence shows that drones tend to be more accurate. We need to shift the burden of the argument to the other side. Why not do this? The positive reasons are overwhelming at this point. This is the future of all air warfare. At least for the US."

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) first made their appearance in 1919 when Elmer Sperry, who also invented the gyroscope and autopilot, attacked a captured German ship with the first UAV loaded down to with explosives(("U.s. army unmanned," 2010). At the time this was a revolutionary weapon, but if we fast forward 80 years from the time of that experiment, UAVs became a common and prolific part of the modern battlefield. Although there is little debate as to the legality of their use on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, in recent years there are been much debate as to the role they should play in the larger American declared Global War on Terror or

The US increasingly relies on drones for its counterterrorism efforts, and the world has been watching the manner in which the US employs this new instrument of Airpower. The use of drones has raised concerns over state sovereignty, human rights, and extrajudicial or extraterritorial killings. While US drone strikes are undoubtedly projecting US power and eliminated terrorists, the question has arisen as to whether or not these killings are doing more harm than good. This question is rooted in the concept of US prestige. Whether or not these strikes are “worth it” saves for another debate, but for purposes of this discussion, these drone strikes have contributed to a loss of US prestige in the international community. Pakistan and Yemen, although secretly authorizing US drone operations, publically condemn the US for violating their sovereignty. A survey in 2012 found that 74% of the Pakistani population views the US as their enemy. The execution of US Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki by a drone strike in Yemen received considerable criticism from the US population. Despite the fact that Awlaki had been radicalized and had recruited western individuals for terrorist acts, there was debate as to whether or not he should have been granted a fair trial. A study conducted by The International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic at Stanford Law School found that “The significant global opposition to drone strikes also erodes US credibility in the international community. In 17 of the 20 countries polled by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, the majority of those surveyed disapproved of US drone attacks in countries like Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.” As with Kosovo, the astounding potential of Airpower for achieving effects is attractive, but the long-term consequences of its misuse should not be

International law does not have direction to how the US UAV program might operate because there is little precedent for its classification. Drone surveillance can add a new level of security and self-policing to a state without compromising legality, however, drone strikes consistently dance on the line of blatantly illegal and legal due to self-defense. Unmanned technology has many uses in the modern war zone that add a level of safety to those using them. Due to concerns of civilian casualties and a lack of transparency by US officials, strikes by UAV could be considered a violation of international law (Geneva, 1979).

Unmanned drones mask a form of modern imperialism. Since 2007 the United States government has taken the liberty to guide ethical and moral warfare pertaining to armed drones. Obamas administration has steadfastly created policy to justify when and where they can use armed drones. Their policies contain immense grey areas and allow the US to act as a global engager of informal war. As a member of the nation that makes these dominating decisions, it is important for me to critique the nation’s policy for possible implications and ulterior motives. Specifically, the economic objective and impact of drone warfare policy is one that I do not stand by.

War zone, which is accounted for a high sense of cruelty make drones technology is “the only game in town” in fighting suspected terrorism and becoming an attractive and inexpensive preference for military service (Wall, 2013). It improved the success rate of high risk missions including behind-the-lines surveillance that also reduced the cost and human casualities of war to a greater extent (Black, 2013).

21st century technologies have forever altered the military landscape. Due to the changing landscape, questions have arisen regarding the legality and ethics of the use of such technologies. Advanced military technologies such as directed energy weapons, autonomous vehicles and robots, and cyber weapons seem to seem to fall into categories of weapons not yet created or restricted, challenging the long established international humanitarian laws. (Allenby) Technology changes more rapidly than we might expect. In the 65 years since the Geneva Conventions was written, military technologies have changed drastically. Technologies of today’s battlefields might be able to slip though loopholes in the international humanitarian laws, making them and their users safe from prosecution of war crimes. Although modern military technologies such as directed energy weapons and autonomous vehicles can be dangerous if not regulated, are essential to the United States we are to remain militarily superior. The international humanitarian laws need to be updated in order to restrain new technologies, protect civilians, eliminate extra-judicial killings, and finally maintain legal, ethical and moral principles. (Allenby)

Often is history when a nation develops a new technology for the means of war we have seen a paradigm shift in a nation’s diplomacy, politics, and military strategy. The world has already seen this recent history with the invention and use of nuclear bomb by the US. The public understood the dangers and the power of nuclear bombs; different nations like the US brought their politician together to form laws for a safer world. However now there is a new weapon in warfare which is causing a massive controversy where the public doesn’t even completely understand the dilemma associated with it because the lack of transparency. The weapon is the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle or otherwise known as military drones. The public needs to understand that

Drone warfare is a relatively new approach military leaders are using to eliminate people who have been deemed “threats”. This new approach of warfare allows for the development of a new version of ethics. This approach develops the notion that allows for the throwing out of what is right and what is wrong, and dictates that cost is more important. By this it assumes that the killing of a potential terrorist is more important than the lives of the innocent. The consequentialist concept and the ethics of duty give two approaches of how ethics view this new approach of warfare. The similarities and difference promote a version of ethics that can be viewed as the more modern approach. The relations of these two concepts determine the overall

The authors’ response is for U.S. to unilateral take the lead on regulating the use of drones and form public oversight committees and organizations to inform the public more clearly of their use. Currently, most target-killing operations are conducted behind closed doors and only a select few have access, mainly the Executive Office and the Pentagon. The authors give examples of outside committees that were used in 2013 to review to the National Security Agency in regards to collecting phone data. The theories the authors’ are demonstrating are liberal and constructivism, where utilization of IGO’s and oversight committees may be used to regulate different aspects of international relations.

These clear violations of jus ad bellum principles with the use of drone strikes have also opened our eyes to moral dangers of drone warfare. This alienated war is easy and safe to use to prevent and provide surveillance on the battlefield. It also provides protection that militaries never by have UAV’s that “fight” in wars, discontinuing the risk of lives of American soldiers. However, since drones are the “new soldiers”, public support and not required to execute drone warfare, let alone have an open debate if these strikes are done in secret.

Talking about ethical implication of drones in military use. Not just U.S. but many other countries like United Kingdom, Israel, China and many more yet to confirm have access to these technology and