Drone Warfare: The Ethics
As former president Obama’s tenure came to an end in early 2017, he left office ordering more than 500 drone strikes. The new technology, like any advancement in military weaponry, proved to be a “safer” option for engaging with potential threats overseas. After all, having the ability to send UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) thousands of miles away and engage with an enemy seems like something that most American citizens could reasonably get behind; we put fewer military personnel in harm's way while still engaging with potential security risks. Nonetheless, almost as quickly as drone warfare emerged, so did the potential and, albeit, abundant drawbacks. Perhaps the most glaring and well-debated consideration is the civilian cost of kinetic warfare. While numerous precautions and intelligence initiatives may preempt a strike, sending a warhead from an altitude of 50,000 feet will never be absolutely precise and collateral damage will follow. Even in situations where more primitive, unmanned aircraft are used as opposed to the prominent US MQ-9 Reaper, the collateral, non-kinetic damage that ensues is palpable. Just last week, a Senior Private in Ukraine’s National Guard noted the detrimental effects of defending against “swarms of drones,” explaining that his unit once worked 16-hour shifts for more than a month attempting to repel the looming threat of unmanned attacks. As more countries and foreign powers grow capable of developing their own long-range drones, the landscape of combat will shift and with it, engagement rules will need to adapt. One of the key questions in this ethical debate is how to define those who operate drones.
One of the inherent characteristics of drone warfare is the fact that they are unmanned. That means that while a Predator drone wisps through the clouds thousands of miles away, the individual or individuals flying it can be sitting in an air-conditioned office, taking a sip of their Matcha latte. As a payload drops towards a target deemed hostile, the operator may be on the way to take a bathroom break or on their lunch break. While this exact scenario may not be the norm and is by all means an extraction and gross oversimplification of the logistics of operating a drone, the question remains the same: how should these operators be defined? For all intents and purposes, while flying the drone, said individual may be reasonably defined as a “combatant.” At that moment in time, they are no different than a traditional soldier on the battlefield and thus, they are liable to a proportional response from the enemy. If, however, that same soldier were to be attacked on their drive home from work passing through their suburban neighborhood, something would feel amiss. As Matthew Crosston, an expert on national security, argues, how would that be any different than the US targeting the members of a terrorist organization after they place a remote explosive to a car? After the device is placed, the US still finds it permissible to attack, so why shouldn’t our enemies do the same?
One of the larger, more foundational sources of this ethical dilemma stems from the undefined standards that we, as a nation follow. Because we set the precedent for what is allowed in terms of drone warfare, other powers should have just the same rights. There are no strictly defined terms in international law or related conventions like the Geneva Convention that explicitly lay out what can and cannot be done, which gives our leaders some leeway to establish what they deem to be ethical. If we deem our actions to be ethical, like those of former President Obama where remote strikes killed numerous innocent civilians, then we have to expect that the same ethical standards will be applied by other powers when acting against us. Even more, by not creating standards of engagement relating to our advanced drone capabilities, it can appear as though there are no standards at all. It is understandable that our national security operations should be discreet and not open to the public, but, when our precautions are not abundantly clear, that gives others the right to apply the same loose guidelines to their own actions. The best course of action, for both our nation's sake and everyone else in the theater of war, is to lay out explicit parameters on how drones can be used, especially in times of conflict. The more transparent we are, and the higher standard we hold ourselves to will not only set an example but also a precedent for future use of non-traditional warfare.
Works Cited
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/obama-to-disclose-how-many-civilians-died-in-u-s-drone-attacks
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/07/world/europe/ukraine-russia-drones.html