Unmanned
Aerial Systems: War, Morally Right?
According Linda Johansson, the use
of UAS are now the interpretative facts for the Laws of War, or LOW. The premise presented is that although UAS
offer a much need advantage namely reduction of loss of life during the wartime
efforts it can give those who decide the “go” factor a sense of war being a
“risk-free-enterprise” lowing the threshold of war implementation (Johannsson,
2011). This may be the case if the
decision makers don’t understand the full scope of war itself, and also if the
operators of the technology don’t grasp the impacts of operating a lethal
machine. It is highly doubted that this
is the case. The 114th United
State House of Representatives currently has 80 military veterans (Military
Veterans in the United States House of Representatives One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, 2015). These veteran are also included in the
decision to go to war. One must believe
the focus of loss of life when speaking of UAS is a high point, but not the
only high point considered. Against the
idea that the individuals involved in war think it is a “risk-free-enterprise”;
an article “Done Pilots Suffer PTSD Just
Like Those in Combat” published by live science brings to light the effects
of war are real even for those who sit inside ground control stations miles
away from harm (Blaszczak-Boxe, 2014). The
distance does not shield UAS operators from post-traumatic stress disorder
better known as PTSD. 4.3 percent of
operators discovered, after an intensive research, suffered from a moderate to
severe case of PTSD compared to deployed military personnel diagnosis of 10 to
18 percent. Clinical psychologist Wayne
Chappelle states. "I would say that, even though the percentage is small,
it is still a very important number, and something that we would want to take
seriously so that we make sure that the folks that are performing their job isn
effectively screened for this condition and treated” (Blaszczak-Boxe,
2014). But what does morality have to do
with this information?
The use of UAS will always be an
ongoing debate until the end of time with no real end game, some would express
rightfully so. This discussion is
ramping upon more so now than ever for many reasons. Could it be that we have had a small taste of
what this technology is doing in the field? Or is the ensuing conversation at
hand about total automation of UAS; giving the technology the right to decide
who lives or dies? Fully autonomous UAS engagement,
i.e. human exclusion is now being considered as part of end user designs
situations (Johannsson, 2011). “Experts
on military technology claim that we will in the future see machines that can
“hunt, identify, authenticate, and possibly kill a target—without a human in
the decision loop” (Magnuson, 2007). Unfortunately
the word autonomous bears many definitions and the ability to being
interchanged as needed to address one’s cause.
So, what does morality have to do with this information?
Just as UAS and the uses of UAS have
been around for decades; war has a history dating back to the beginning of
time. Some individuals would argue that
any technology used during wartime was designed to take human life. Thus, all technology used during wartime is
“unethical since war is unethical in itself” (Johannsson, 2011). What I have found to be interesting is that
there is a premise for “ethical war” – servility in war? Interesting. As strange as this may sound it is serious;
so serious that from the 19th century forward LOW has been
officially encoded in protocols like the Geneva Conventions, plus the Rule of
Engagement (Johannsson, 2011). These are
better known as “The rules of Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello” (Orend,
2008).
Jus ad Bellum (Orend, 2008):
–
Just cause: the reason for going to
war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things
taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in
imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. Examples:
self-defense from external attack, punishment for a severe wrongdoing which
remains uncorrected. This is the first and most important rule.
–
Right intention: the state must
intend to fight the war only for the sake of its just cause. Force may be used
only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered
wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining
economies is not.
–
Legitimate authority: war is only
between states.
–
Last resort: all peaceful and
viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not
practical.
–
Reasonable chance of success: a
state’s resort to war must be considered to have a measurable impact on the
situation.
–
Proportionality: the anticipated
benefits of waging war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.
(Also known as the principle of macroproportionality to separate it from the
Jus in Bello principle of proportionality).
Jus in Bello (Orend, 2008):
–
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.
–
Necessity: the attack must be
necessary (just war should be governed by the principle of minimum force). This
principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.
–
Weapons: all international laws on
weapons prohibitions must be obeyed, such as chemical and biological weapons.
Nuclear weapons are considered taboo
What does morality
have to do with this information?
When looking at the LOW a very strong point was
introduced, the Law of War must be “morally plausible to large numbers of men
and women; it must correspond to our sense of what is right.”(Walzer, 2006, p.
133). Okay, but morality is in the eye
of the beholder. One person’s moral
compass may swing different from another, this is more often than not. All of the above information is relevant to morality
when using UAS in war. In my opinion the
use of UAS in wartime is no more egregious than using F16s, PAC3 missions,
tanks or any other form of artillery.
UAS are just another means to an end – it is a tool for use. The morality falls upon the entities in disagreement. However, I must speak on full autonomy in the
since of taking human’s out of the loop.
If this is the direction UAS technology is headed, it would be egregious
to mistake standalone technological decisions as an acceptable answer. Humans should never be taken out of the loop
for many reasons. If this occurs, it is
inevitable that this could cause a lowing the threshold of war due to human
disconnect or lack of engagement. One
can lose sight of the effects of war.
What is meant by this is, if humans fail to feel and reason it is
possible to care less about the act of war or starting war.
References
Blaszczak-Boxe,
A. (2014, August). Drone Pilots Suffer PTSD Just Like Those in Combat. Live Science. Retrieved March 15, 2015, from http://www.livescience.com/47475-drone-operators-develop-ptsd.html
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/10.1007/s13347-011-0033-8
Magnuson,
S. (2007). Robo soldiers. National Defense (pp. 36–40). September 2007.
Military
Veterans in the United States House of Representatives One Hundred Fourteenth Congress. (2015, January 6). Retrieved
March 15, 2015, from https://veterans.house.gov/veterans-congress-114th-congress
Orend,
B. (2008). War. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of
philosophy (fall 2008 Edition).
URL= http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/war/.
Walzer, M.
(2006). Just and unjust wars. New York: The Perseus Books Group.
