“Meet Ukraine’s Most Lethal Drone Pilot: A Guardian in the Skies”

The Evolution of Warfare

The technology of war is always moving ahead, and in the 21st century, it has undergone a radical transformation. The advancements of the past century have greatly altered the types of tools and techniques available to military commanders. Among the newest tools that have become a key part of today’s military are drones, often referred to as UAVs, or unmanned aerial vehicles. These are aircraft that can be used for surveillance or combat, but without an onboard pilot, they are seen as something significantly different from past tools of aerial warfare. Because UAVs are now seen as the next step in the evolution of aerial warfare that began in World War I, it is time to rethink their ethics.

Facing Danger Daily

In this article, the authors assert that the ascent of drone warfare has marked a clear step in military strategy, with profound changes to the appearance and essence of conflict. Drone warfare hardens the technological, psychological, and societal underpinnings of the new normal in military operations and, many would argue, in international relations more broadly. This article examines these aspects of a potentially game-changing military strategy.

Using drones in warfare has changed perception; it’s not just a technical shift. They’re bringing about a change in how wars are waged and seen, with the public much more able to relate to a kill-by-surgical-drone narrative than they can to a bomb dropped by a “dumb” weapon. Civilians may be much safer because of reduced operator risk and real-time video feeds to drones over what human-targeted operation bases can offer; however, the appearance of precision may be misleading. The International Institute for Strategic Studies says that the “growth market” for our profusion of drones is militancy, with the expected value of the global drone market surging far past $43 billion by 2024. And the question is: Have we “democratized” death? As in, can non-state actors now use drones to do what states do when they bomb and kill?

Advancements in Drone Technology

The use of drones for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance has evolved from their original function of delivering dangerous, close-up photos for the enemy to get a look at the lay of the land. On our side, they provided a real-time intelligence windfall without putting human lives at risk. But in recent years, the “reconned” drone has morphed into a “killer” drone, a Robocop with wings, so to speak. The strikes they now carry out—sometimes an ocean away from where the operators are sitting—have by and large made a mockery of due process and the “rule of law” that our nation supposedly operates under. Yes, our forefathers played halfway decent golf, but these rights that our Constitution guarantees us are our birthright—our ancestor’s ace-in-the-hole way of negotiating with a very troublesome opponent.

The use of drones in warfare has transformed how traditional combat is performed, allowing for pinpoint striking power with an apparently reduced human footprint on the battlefield. What this transformation means for the old ideas of the “just war” is a bit murky. We may be upholding the old human-scale tenets of the “just war” while using a new, even less human (and possibly more immoral) way of conducting warfare. When we consider what we ought to do from a moral perspective, it isn’t clear if we should value the possibility of reduced human casualties less than what we have valued in the past. Is it less moral if the operator is even further removed from the actual fighting, which might make killing easier, as some have accused drone operators of being? Or is it more immoral because the precision of the drone makes the civilian death toll potentially much higher?

The Uncertain Frontline

Civilian casualties from drone strikes. That is a pretty inflammatory phrase. It’s hard to imagine maintaining a good relationship with the local population when you are killing innocent men, women, and children living in the homes below among the drones’ operators. But that is precisely what the people working at the Bureau of Investigative Journalism say an up-close-and-personal look at the world of the drone and its operator has shown. They have found that military drone strikes in places like Pakistan have resulted in significant civilian casualties. By their count, between 2004 and 2010, U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan killed about 1,200 to 1,600 individuals, whom the Bureau classifies as “notables” or “high-value targets,” and 1,100 to 2,300 innocent civilians.

The critics of drone warfare often hold up the technology as one that reduces the risks to military personnel and one that allows for highly effective, targeted operations. While it is true that the use of drones leads to a reduction in the immediate dangers faced by soldiers, this is not the basic argument made by critics. Their line of reasoning goes like this: Reduced risk to military personnel “… can lead to more effective and better-targeted military operations. The separation (or detachment) from the actual battlefield, however, can lead to a lack of accountability, which can in turn lead to increases in the number of civilian casualties, something no military operation can afford and retain any public legitimacy.” This is the argument made with such beautiful prose that it reads almost like poetry.

For the average reader, seeing how drone strikes are perceived can affect our overall view of conflict and security. Although in the past we have seen citizens “grapple with the ethical dimensions” of being at war, this discussion appears to be happening less frequently in our society and world. The inaccessibility of drone warfare, for the most part, has led to a decrease in injuries and fatalities on our side. Yet, in our current political climate, it may be wise to consider the potential for misuse of drone technology. A number of recent articles have done a good job of summarizing both the benefits and the risks of this new technology, so let’s take a look at what they’ve said.

To sum up, the emergence of drone warfare signifies a crucial turning point in the development of military conflict. Although it has benefits such as enhanced precision and a decreased risk to military personnel, the rapid ascent of this new technology has raised some serious questions that, as a society, we need to answer. These revolve around the basic issue of “how can we ensure that people who use these systems are doing so in a way that is consistent with not just the laws of war but also our ethical principles?”

We are at the edge of a new epoch in combat. We should consider whether we’re ready to face the ethical puzzles that come with drone tech. Or are we going to let our technological prowess do the good ol’ “overshadow” trick it always does and allow us to forget the moral responsibilities we should uphold? Making warfare possible is not just about making tech. It’s also about making with the right values—values that won’t let us slip back into our old, inhumane routines.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *