Drones in War - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Drones in WarSlide2

Drones

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) or Remote Piloted Aircraft (RPA)—”Drones”

Flown remotely via satellite link by operators on the ground

Drone strikes are typically carried out by both US Air Force and CIA.

First known strikes occur in 2002.Slide3

Drones

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) or Remote Piloted Aircraft (RPA)—”Drones”

Flown remotely via satellite link by operators on the ground

Drone strikes are typically carried out by both US Air Force and CIA.First known strikes occur in 2002.Slide4

Principle of Unnecessary Risk (PUR)

Moral Predators, Bradley

Strawser

Thesis: We are obligated to employ UAV weapon systems (armed drones) if it can be sown that their use does not significantly reduced a warfighter’s operational capability.Slide5

Principle of Unnecessary Risk (PUR)

PUR: If x gives an order to accomplish good goal G, then X has an obligation, other things being equal, to chose a means to accomplish G that does not violate the demands of

justice

, make the world worse

, or expose Y to potentially lethal

risk

unless incurring such risk aids in the accomplishment of G in some way that cannot be gained via less risky means.

PUR is a demand not to order someone to take unnecessary risk on par with alternative means to accomplish some goal G.

Yes, in some cases the only way to accomplish G will be to order Y to do something exposing Y to potentially lethal risk.Slide6

Principle of Unnecessary Risk (PUR)

PUR: If x gives an order to accomplish good goal G, then X has an obligation, other things being equal, to chose a means to accomplish G that does not violate the demands of

justice

, make the world worse

, or expose Y to potentially lethal

risk

unless incurring such risk aids in the accomplishment of G in some way that cannot be gained via less risky means.

Thought Experiment: Captain ZeldaSlide7

Principle of Unnecessary Risk (PUR)

Captain Zelda

Captain Zelda and her soldiers

are fighting in a just war, taking just action against unjust enemy soldiers, in pursuit of some good (defending their homes, families, themselves, and other

innocents).

Captain

Zelda

decides

to remove her bullet-proof vest, throw down her rifle, and charge the enemies with nothing more than a large rock and chutzpa.

She

turns to the troops under her command and orders them to do likewise.Slide8

Principle of Unnecessary Risk (PUR)

Captain Zelda

The PUR holds that Captain Zelda’s actions are morally impermissible.

She cannot endanger the lives of her troops any more than is necessary for the accomplishment of their justified goal.Slide9

Principle of Unnecessary Risk (PUR)

OP: For any just action taken by a given military, if it is possible for the military to use UAV platforms in place of inhabited aerial vehicles without a significant loss of capability, then that military has an ethical obligation to do so.

Note that this is a conditional (

if it is possible…).

Note that this is only about preferring UAVs to inhabited aerial vehicles.Slide10

Principle of Unnecessary Risk (PUR)

Prudentville

and

RecklessvilleBoth towns have robots which can disarm bombs without significant loss of capability, protecting the lives of the EOD team.Prudentville

uses theirs.

Recklessville

does not.Slide11

Principle of Unnecessary Risk (PUR)

Prudentville

and

RecklessvillePUR supports Prudentville’s policy, while

Recklessville

is in violation of PUR.

This situation is analogous to using UAVs instead of piloted crafts.

Hence, OP.Slide12

Objections

Move to Independent Autonomous Weapons Systems

UAV Limitations Lead to

jus in bello Violations

Cognitive Dissonance for UAV Operators

Targeted Killing by UAVs

UAVs Create Unjust Asymmetry in Combat

Reduction of the

jus ad bellum

ThresholdSlide13

Objections

Objection 1: Move to Independent Autonomous Weapons Systems

IAWs are morally impermissible.

UAV development will lead to IAWs.Therefore, UAV development is morally impermissible.Slide14

Objections

Response to Objection 1

This doesn’t counter the moral obligation for UAV employment.

We can even grant that IAWs are morally impermissible and question whether UAVs will lead to IAWs.Thus we need empirical evidence to show that this is the case.Further Thoughts

If

Strawser

is right that we need empirical evidence, what do we do in the meantime: continue using UAVs or refrain from using UAVs?Slide15

Objections

The Precautionary Principle

If an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof falls on those taking an action.

The Precautionary Principle is used to justify restrictions and regulations of activity found to be plausibly risky; protections can be relaxed or removed only when supported by further scientific findings.Slide16

Objections

Objection 2: UAV Limitations lead to

jus in bello

ViolationsUAV operators will not be able to adhere to jus in bello principles of discrimination, proportionality.

Discrimination—Combatants and civilians.

Proportionality—Harm caused to civilians cannot exceed that required to obtain a “concrete and direct military advantage”. Slide17

Objections

Response to Objection 2

Yes, if in fact this occurs, then UAVs should not be used.

However, there is reason to think that the opposite occurs. For example, the operator’s ability to discriminate targets increases with UAVs.Slide18

Objections

Objection 3: Cognitive Dissonance for UAV Operators

Psychological conflict will cause harm to the operator and harm to the operator’s will to fight justly, which will in turn cause unjustified harms to others.Slide19

Objections

Response to Objection 3

The potential of jus in bello violations might actually lessen since the operator has more time to evaluate the target and doesn’t fear for his/her life.

But even if we grant that harms occur, there are corrections and this isn’t a criticism of UAVs in principle. Due to recording and viewing by many others, there is an “added level of accountability”.

Harms are not necessarily greater than that incurred by pilots.Slide20

Objections

Objection 4: Targeted Killing by UAVs

UAVs are not ground forces and thus can elude traditional just war theory.

Targeted killings by UAVs will be viewed as ignoble or cowardly by the population, creating a problem for winning “hearts and minds”.

UAVs make targeted killings easier and thus more likely.Slide21

Objections

Response to Objection 4

Strawser

expresses concerns over assassinations and non-military government agencies conducting lethal operations abroad.“Since 2009, the United States … has

specifically targeted and killed one U.S. citizen, Anwar al-

Aulaqi

. The United States is further aware of three other U.S. citizens who have been killed in such U.S. counterterrorism operations over that same time period: Samir Khan, ‘

Abd

al-Rahman Anwar al-

Aulaqi

, and Jude Kenan Mohammed. These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States

.”Slide22

Objections

Response to Objection 4

Regarding the first point, one might make a “contrived argument” that if no person crosses the border, then no infringement of national security occurs.

But Strawser points out two counterexamples: long-distance artillery, cyber-warfare.

So, the “contrived argument” is no rebuttal to the first point of objection 4.

UAVs don’t elude just war theory in any new way.Slide23

Objections

Response to Objection 4

Regarding the second point, that UAVs create a problem for winning “hearts and minds”,

Strawser argues that some evidence counters this. (Plaw 2010) (However, see PEW 2010, 2013 which shows the opposite.)Slide24

Objections

Response to Objection 4

Regarding the second point, that UAVs create a problem for winning “hearts and minds”,

Strawser argues that some evidence counters this. (Plaw 2010) (However, see PEW 2010, 2013 which shows the opposite.)Slide25

Objections

Response to Objection 4

But even if they do enrage the population, this is not an objection to OP. For OP requires that there be no significant loss of capability, and enraging a population will presumably count as a significant loss of capability.

Further ThoughtsStrawser

defend OP; however, if UAVs often or dramatically result in significant loss of capability, then OP rarely applies.Slide26

Objections

Response to Objection 4

Regarding third point, that UAVs make targeted killings more easy,

Strawser distinguishes between a weapon that gives one abilities that can be abused and policies and people who commit these abuses.Analogously, airplanes allow one to bomb innocent civilians, but this does not make airplanes morally suspicious.Slide27

Objections

Objection 5: UAVs Create Unjust Asymmetry in Combat

Use of UAVs is ignoble. The fight is “intrinsically unfair”. One side is not even present and takes no life or death risks while the other side does take these risks.Slide28

Objections

Reply to Objection 5

Unfairness due to asymmetry has existed long before UAVs and is not endemic to them.

Also, the feeling that one should fight a fair fight might be just as archaic as the feeling that troops should line up for a dignified battle. Strawser admits sharing the feeling, but he adds that the feeling is quite different than the

normative issue.Slide29

Objections

Objection 6: Reduction of the Jus ad Bellum Threshold

UAVs make it too easy to go to war. The costs (political, economic) do not sufficiently weigh against it.

This of course is one of the “ripple effects” that P. W. Singer speaks about.Slide30

Objections

Response to Objection 6

Nation-State

Zandar.Slide31

Principle of Unnecessary Risk (PUR)

Strawser’s

Main Argument

We have a duty to protect an agent engaged in a justified act from harm to the greatest extent possible, so long as that protection does not interfere with the agent’s ability to act justly.UAVs afford precisely such protection.

Therefore, we are obligated to employ UAV weapon systems if it can be sown that their use does not significantly reduced a warfighter’s operational capability.