The use
of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in war has multiple advantages most notably
with the reduction in causalities for the user.
This advantage was further increased with the added ability to target
and engage upon enemy combatants by remote means, further removing the
potential for friendly causalities. However
at the same time, this new capability had also changed the face of war creating
a “risk-free enterprise” or a sensation as if equal to that of playing a video
game (Johansson, 2011). Currently the military requires by
regulations that humans must be involved in the decision making when engaging
in lethal force. However this regulation
may change in the future as more advanced artificial intelligence software
makes finding, identifying, confirming and even engaging upon “lethal
combatants without human intervention possible.
This is what I like to refer to as the Terminator effect. This once seemed as a far-fetched science
fiction movie is now becoming a potential for future warfare, with machines
killing discriminately. But even the
current method presents a moral, ethical and unique human factors associated
with the use of UAVs as a weapon in conflicts.
Morally
we understand that life should only be taken as a last resort as a means of
resolving conflict during a state war. Morality however has become more obscured
with the use of UAVs, especially when involving lethal force. This is because the users of UAVs are no
longer located in the same area as the targets they are engaged with and
therefore are removed from the mental and physical effects normally associated
with war in person. This creates an environment in which the
decision for lethal force becomes easy, as those pushing the button are removed
from the horror of their action. This
also raises the question, to whether the operators of UAVs are considered
lethal combatants of ware given their involvement, despite being removed from
the battle field. The U.S. Department of
Defense officials along with most legal scholars agree that operators are legal
combatants, whether on or off-duty (Majumdar, 2001). Of course this presents another factor as
most operators are conducting these operations within the borders of the
US. Therefore any retaliation towards
the operators from our enemy would be conducted on US soil, creating an unfair
advantage for the operator. However in
retaliation, our enemy has broadened their targets beyond the operators. Just recently “ISIS has been targeting military personal and even family of military
members within the United States, who are involved with UAS” (Majumdar, 2001).
This again poses the question of whether this is morally right or wrong;
keeping in mind that the morality is based upon ones cultural acceptance
between what is right versus wrong behavior or actions. In other words, what we consider wrong in our
society is morally acceptable by our enemies.
The
more obvious ethical side of using UAVs is in the terms of what is considered
legal warfare. In our history, war was
between two or more nations or states; however today, war has been declared and
conducted on ideology with no defined state-hood or boarders. The lake of statehood alone can be considered
a violation of the legitimacy of war (Johansson,
2011). None the less today, we
are conducting UAV operations worldwide and even taking lives that we deem
necessary under the presumption of war, while finding it illegal for our enemy
to do the same against us (Majumdar, 2001). This raises the question to what is being
conducted by means of UAV worldwide morally or ethically right. Morally we understand when it is acceptable
to take a life; however without defining war to the boundaries of statehood, at
what point is the political justification that resulted in war truly fulfilled. Furthermore, at what point are the lines of
war blurred as UAV’s transition between boundaries to conduct operations
without a declaration of war since no humans are physically on board. This even extends to those involved in the
execution of the UAV; some of which who are civilian agencies. This even raises the propensity to conduct
operations that may result in the loss in life as the perception of war
becoming costless (Johansson, 2011).
UAVs
have their own unique human factors associated with their use, which can
exacerbate the decision for lethal force.
UAV pilots are first restricted in their ability to use majority of
their five senses; currently restricted to only visual (monitors) and audio
(radios). Therefore UAV pilots have
higher degree in proportional use of force errors caused by the restriction of
their view and the physical separation from the target, resulting in the
greater potential for collateral damage to civilian life (Majumdar, 2001).
Other more common human factors that are more likely to occur with UAVs consist
of individual skill and knowledge of their weapon system. This includes checklist errors, task
saturation or mis-prioritization, lack in training, and lack in crew
coordination.
The
use of manned aircraft have been
accepted as moral and ethical way to wage war given that the declaration of war
against a state or nation is clear.
Although accepted, this can still present a problem. One justification for the continued
development and use of UAVs for strikes is that manned aircraft target accuracy
can be inhibited by a pilot’s inclination to “hurry when put in a dangerous
area or situation” (Johansson, 2011). However unlike UAVs the perception a manned
aircraft pilot has on the target area and well as the target itself is
greater. Manned aircraft pilots have the
ability to use majority if not all their five senses to interpret the situation
whereas UAV pilots are restricted to visual interpretation from the monitors in
front of them and the audio from the radios only.
Overall,
the future use of UAVs needs to have a more definitive declaration of when
authorized for use, similar to those of manned aircraft. Due to the complexity of viable targets, UAV
operations need to understand that just because they are not physically present
with the aircraft does not remove them from the list of legal combatant. Therefore, further examination to whether
they should be used for lethal strikes should be reviewed as their continued
use poses a greater potential threat for homeland defense as retaliation
towards the operators and their relatives increase. Not to mention the moral and ethical
implications with their use for striking targets from within the US
boarders. Additionally, more clear
guidance needs to be written on what is considered legal warfare in the regards
to UAV operations from beyond line of sight.
This is of particular importance as other nations are developing their
own UAVs and looking towards the US as to what is considered as an acceptable
use. Therefore we as a nation have the
responsibility to define the future morality in the use of UAVs. This is why I feel that UAVs should be
restricted to reconnaissance use only despite having a human making the
decision for lethal force. That manned
aircraft are best reserved for physical strikes as they remove some of the
ambiguity of information, and decrease the blur between what is morally right
and is ethically accepted by majority of the world for use during war.
Reference
Johansson, L. (2011). Is it morally right to use
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in war?. Philosophy & technology, 24(3), 279-291. doi:
10.1007/s13347-011-0033-8
Majumdar, D. (2001, May 16). Can remote operators
of UAVs become military targets?. Defense
News, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/869002825?accountid=27203
No comments:
Post a Comment