Ethics and Morals Of Unmanned Systems Usage in Warfare

The use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in remote warfare is a technological benefit which should continue to be used today and well into the future. The operation of UAS to perform the same missions which manned aircraft would perform provides a monetary savings benefit and also removes the pilot from the cockpit resulting in no danger or the possibility of loss of life which may sometimes result from operating a manned aircraft.

However, there are both ethical and moral issues involved in the use of UAS to perform military missions in which human targets of interest are eliminated by an aircraft which is operated by a remote pilot thousands of miles away. Issues surrounding the acts of war conducted in areas populated by civilians has increased the danger of military missions due to the difficulty of distinguishing between civilians and enemy combatants “This trend has blurred the line between combatants and civilians and made it difficult to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate targets” (Kreps & Kaag, 2012, para. 2 ).

There is also an issue of accuracy in using weapons against enemy combatants “these technologies provide militaries with more information with which to distinguish a combatant from a civilian, pinpoint and target some individuals, while sparing others. The weapons, however, do not ensure that a selected target is a legitimate target” (Kreps & Kaag, 2012, para. 3).

The ethical issue of eliminating the enemy combatant’s numbers while reducing the number of casualties of the opposing country is also discussed “In the eyes of many ethicists and legal theorists, however, minimizing one's own casualties at the expense of those on the opposing side constitutes a substantial transgression” (Kreps & Kaag, 2012, para. 62).

However, such a view should not be an ethical circumstance or viewed upon as a matter of transgression but rather as a survival of will and life supported by strong organization and training.
There is a determination of the potential future use of UAS to autonomously eliminate human life “it has also been stated that fully autonomous engagement without human intervention should be considered, under user-defined conditions” (Johansson, 2011, p. 279).

The use of UAS in this capacity further presents other ethical questions such as “is it morally right to use UAVs in war, if so in what manner and circumstances? Will autonomy evoke new, possibly serious ethical questions? Are UAV’s similar in the morally relevant respects to other weapons? (Johansson, 2011, p. 280). 

Such questions can be answered in connection with the laws of war under Jus ad Bellum (reasons for fighting) and Jus in Bello (ethical means of fighting once in war) rules which provide reasons for using a weapon with justifiable cause. The justified reasons under Jus as Bellum could be stated under just cause “innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life” and last resort which provides for “all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical” (Johansson, 2011, p. 281). 

Reasons stated under Jus in Bello could be stated under “Discrimination: only military targets and enemy combatants can be attacked” “Proportionality/excess: an attack cannot be launched on a military objective if the civilian damage would be excessive in relation to the military advantage— the value of an attack must be in proportion to what is gained” (Johansson, 2011, p. 282). The points stated above provide reasons to use UAS in wars due to the terrorist actions our country has suffered. The weapons used in UAS platforms may at time result in the loss of innocent civilian or non-combatant lives, which is most unfortunate.

However, those civilians whom secretly protect information about planned attacks or members of terrorist groups or harbor terrorist members in their homes, are just as guilty of protecting and supporting terrorist groups and their agenda and therefore should be regarded as targets during war.
An interesting statement is made with regard to using UAS in wars “the UAV possessor, but they may at the same time make war seem more like a risk-free enterprise, much like a computer game, therefore lowering the threshold for starting a war” (Johansson, 2011, p. 290).  This statement may be true for a country which by practice punishes its very own citizens based on the order of a tyrannical ruler.

However, in a country in which fundamental rights take precedence over totalitarian rule, such a scenario would not be the case.  A country governed by the will of its citizens will protect itself and will take any means necessary against a group which seeks to destroy or eliminate freedoms closely held by citizens. Such a country would also pre-plan thru reconnaissance, and surveillance, missions in order to gather the necessary data before executing a strike against a single or group of enemy combatants.

Furthermore, such attacks follow additional protocols to the Geneva Convention which states “the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects “verify that the target is a military objective and to take all feasible precautions in the methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and minimizing incidental loss of civilian life, injury and damage to civilian objects” (Jenks, 2010, p. 668). 

In contrast the manned aircraft application presents a different form of combat. The pilot is present within the cockpit of the aircraft and maneuvering is performed by the pilot. Airstrikes using the aircrafts missiles or bombs are also deployed by the actions of the pilot and therefore the danger of being involved, and present within the danger of war is further escalated due to the pilot facing the possibility of loss of life.

The pilot also can make decisions at a much quicker time rate based on the observable situations present on the field of battle and decide whether or not to deploy weapons if civilians are present within the immediate area. The issue of using the manned application for airstrikes is further met with a comparison between both platforms much to the dislike of some who have reservations of the unmanned platform “The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes … is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who’ve never seen one or seen the effects of one” (Freiberger, 2013, para. 12).

Additional opinions on the UAS platform and its mode of airstrikes are judged by those whom have a feeling resentment due to the swiftness of strikes against enemy combatants
“the idea that innocents are being targeted without affording them any opportunity to surrender appears especially problematic to some (Hussain 2012), although it is not clear how this differs from manned airstrikes or sniper or artillery attacks” (Freiberger, 2013, para. 11).

The use of UAS airstrikes against enemy combatants is one that is justified due to the involvement of the individual in terrorist act or plotting against a country. The actions of war must be carried out swiftly due to the fact that the person of interest has a very good chance of escape. Therefore, using UAS airstrikes is seen as a favorable alternative which would decrease the possibility of military service members being killed in battle while protecting the country.

References

Freiberger, E. (2013). Just War Theory and the Ethics of Drone Warfare. E-International Relations, Retrieved from http://www.e-ir.info/2013/07/18/just-war-theory-and-the- ethics-of-drone-warfare/

Hussain, Murtaza (2012) “Is drone war moral? Updates: A Philosopher’s arguments are both odious and wrong” Guardian, August 6, 2012. Web. 20 June 2013.

Jenks, C. (2010). Law from Above: Unmanned Aerial Systems, Use of Force, and the Law of Armed Conflict. North Dakota Law Review, Vol. 85, Retrieved fromhttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1569904

Johansson, L. (2011). Is it morally right to use unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in war? Philosophy & Technology, 24(3), 279-291.doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1007/s13347-011-0033-8

Kreps, S., & Kaag, J. (2012). The use of unmanned aerial vehicles in contemporary conflict: A legal and ethical analysis. Polity, 44(2), 260-doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy285..libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1057/pol.2012.2