Unmanned Aerial Systems: War, Morally Right?

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 114^th 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 19^th 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.