Human Factors, Ethics, and Morality of Remote Warfare

Two decades of regular use in combat have normalized the employment of drones on the battlefield. Though accepted as a component of modern warfare, the use of unmanned systems in battle is not without controversy. While the technical ability to wage war remotely has been proven possible, full consideration for the human factors, ethics, and moral impact of doing so seems lacking at times. There has been healthy debate in recent years, however, on whether drone use in warfare is justifiable in the conduct of military operations.

The ethical and moral issue most commonly associated with drone warfare is the question of whether potential for collateral damage and unintentional civilian injury or death is an acceptable cost of their use in military conflict. Until recently, the United States has had a near-total monopoly on the use of drones in combat, however, nothing guarantees that lead will be maintained with foreign powers quickly catching up in developing UAS capability (Cohen, 2015). For the U.S., significantly lower operating cost, greater endurance, and eliminating risk to pilots all make for compelling justification. Critics of the U.S. policy of drone use focus on evidence that they have unintentionally killed innocents (Shane, 2012). The death of any civilians attributed to warfare is unlikely to ever become acceptable, making the case against armed UAS difficult to argue. The alternatives could be worse, though. 

Bradley J. Strawser, a former Air Force officer and assistant professor of philosophy at the Naval Postgraduate School conducted a concentrated study on the ethics of remotely piloted vehicles in warfare. He initially had doubts and concerns, but concluded the use of unmanned systems to pursue terrorists was not only ethically permissible but also might be obligatory due to the advantages of UAS in positively identifying targets and striking with precision (Shane, 2012). His research points out “all the evidence we have so far suggests that drones do better both at identifying the terrorist and avoiding collateral damage than anything else we have” (Shane, 2012). 

In contrast, the relative ease in which drone strikes are conducted in non-war zones with little question by the public has contributed to the spike in use in recent years. Preemptive strikes with armed UAS carried out in countries like Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen have been preferred over conventional warfare. In Yemen, for example, there have been well over 100 drone strikes over the past dozen years (Mayer, 2016). A thought to consider is if military personnel are not assigned to carry out a mission because the risk is too great and a drone is, then is the mission truly vital (Mayer, 2016)?

Unlike many other aspects of warfare, the ethics and morality of combat drones are debatable. There are compelling arguments that support the use of armed UAS and equally substantial reasons to oppose it. Military drone use itself is complex, and therefore should be evaluated for ethical and moral compliance on a mission by mission basis rather than in general terms. 

Reference 

Cohen, M. (2015, February 16). Is drone warfare ethical? Retrieved from https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/02/16/is-drone-warfare-ethical/

Mayer, A. (2016, November 25). The ethics of modern warfare. Retrieved from http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2016/11/ethics-warfare-drone/

Shane, S. (2012, July 14). The moral case for drones. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/sunday-review/the-moral-case-for-drones.html