The Use of Unmanned Systems in Remote Warfare: A Personal View

Daniel J. Hall, Jr.

ASCI 638 – Human Factors in Unmanned Systems

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University-Worldwide

July 28, 2014

The Use of Unmanned Systems in Remote Warfare: A Personal View

One significant human factor that has made headlines in recent years is the psychological factors associated with using unmanned aerospace systems (UAS) to kill enemy combatants.  The issues revolves around UAS pilots who are stationed in the U.S. but are commanding UAS to kill combatants thousands of miles away.  Since the UAS can loiter for many hours over the target before and after the strike, the UAS pilots often witness the death and destruction they have unleashed.  Then, at the end of their shift, they go home to have dinner with the family.  In this case, the UAS pilot does not have the opportunity to come to grips with the mental baggage of taking the life of another human being before they have to walk through the door and assume a normal life in Suburbia, USA.

Manned aircraft pilots are also personally responsible for unleashing death and destruction upon enemy combatants.  However, in the case of manned aircraft the pilot usually does not loiter overhead to assess the effectiveness of their strike.  Another difference between UAS and manned aircraft is that the manned aircraft is usually operated from a deployed site close to the operational area.  By virtue of being deployed, the manned aircraft pilot has access to the emotional support of their comrades as well as other means to deal with the mental conflicts of killing another human being.

An ethical issue associated with using UAS in remote warfare the question of a fair fight.  A related example would be the use of snipers in warfare.  In the past, there’s been debate on whether it was ethical to use snipers on the battlefield.  The premise is that it’s not a fair method of killing one’s enemies.  The targeted individual has no indication he’s about to be killed and may not even be actively engaged in hostilities at the time the killing shot is taken.

Some have used this same argument for opposing the use of UAS in remote warfare.  However, in the author’s opinion, the same could be said of using artillery, long range missiles fired from ships, and bombs from manned aircraft.  In each of these cases the target may have no idea they are about to be struck.  This argument was described by Johansson (2011) as follows:

The physical distance detaches the fighter from the consequence of the use of their weaponry.  This might be considered specific for UAVs.  Of course, this is a psychological discussion going back to when the use of bow and arrows began—compared to killing a person up close, by sword. (p. 285)

That being said, the absence of a man in the cockpit of the UAS makes that platform no different than any other weapons of war.

In conclusion, the author fully supports the use of UAS in remote warfare.  When diplomacy fails and war is declared, each side takes advantage of whatever means available to defeat the opposition.  At the current time there are many countries with UAS capabilities and the author doesn’t believe any of these countries would refrain from using the UAS at their disposal.  Just as Fat Man and Little Boy saved the lives of an untold number of American personnel at the end of World War II, so too do UAS save American military personnel today.

For those that oppose the use of UAS in remote warfare, the author would like to pose the following question: “Which one of your closest loved ones do you want to send to an extremely dangerous place to try and kill extremely dangerous enemies?”  When diplomacy fails – someone has to do the job.  In that case and when available, the UAS gets the author’s vote!

References

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