UAS
Human Factors of Ethics and Morality
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University
ASCI 638
Human Factors in Unmanned Aerospace Systems
May 20,
2017
Although
unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) have been a part of aviation for nearly a
century, with the Curtis N-9 Aerial Torpedo that successfully flew on March 6,
1918 (Jarnot, 2012), recent developments have made them increasingly
controversial. Concerns over the ethical use of UAS accelerated with the
proliferation of the General Atomics MQ-1 Predator. With the Predator’s prowess
in performing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions
came concerns of their ethical use and impact on privacy. Later, when the
Predator was fitted with Hellfire missiles, these concerns then included the moral
use of deadly force via UAS.
Many scholars and activists alike, have shed
light on these concerns and raised some valid questions as to what should be
done about them. Many argue that the use of UAS will increase the likelihood of
conflict (Freiberger, 2013; Sparrow, 2009). This seems logical when one
considers the fact that UAS crews are much less likely to suffer physical harm
in combat when compared to crews of manned aircraft (Fitzsimmons & Sangha,
2010). Because of this “ability to project power without projecting
vulnerability” (CNN, 2009) the theory is that unscrupulous leaders are more
likely to utilize UAS for attacks. The idea is that both the leaders and UAS
crews are unscrupulous and void of remorse or emotion.
Another
argument against the use of UAS is that their crews are somehow less intimate
with the enemy when compared to other combatants. For example, as Sparrow
(2009) suggested “the psychological barriers to killing are greatly reduced by
the distance between weapon operators and their targets” (p. 25). Many also
suggest that UAS are used to eliminate enemies without even properly
identifying them (Freiberger, 2013). However, in doing so, many of these
individuals marginalize UAS and their operators as mindless “joystick jockeys”
(Sparrow, 2009, p. 25). The truth is, these crews, largely due to the extended
loiter time abilities of UAS, spend days and sometimes even weeks identifying
targets making these crews much more intimate with the enemy than crews of any
manned aircraft. As Armour and Ross (2017) put it:
Through
surveillance of enemies in high definition videos over extended periods of
time, drone operators become familiar with the daily routines of their
potential targets and are required to survey the targets after attacking them
to ensure that the destruction was complete… Hence, even though the drone
operators are physically remote from their targets, they can be said to be very
close to them psychologically (p. 84).
The use
of UAS as weapons seems to be a natural evolution in warfare. Early advances in
weaponry such as the sling or archers were deployed for their ability to strike
an enemy at a safe distance. Would those who oppose the use of UAS in deadly
force find it acceptable if a pilot were onboard the aircraft? Would they
suggest that David should have used a sword to confront Goliath instead of a
sling? The evolution of weapons and warfare has always been to defeat the enemy
while minimizing one’s casualties. With that said, the use of UAS is simply a
continuation of this evolution.
In
summary, the use of UAS in conducting precision attacks for the military should
continue. The idea of a psychological disconnect between UAS crews and their
targets is not only incorrect, in actuality, these crews are much more intimate
with their targets than pilots of manned aircraft. This is largely due to the
loiter capabilities of the aircraft and the policy of military leaders to
surveil targets for long periods of time to ensure the target is a legitimate
one.
However,
it does seem conceivable that governmental leaders could become too comfortable
with deploying UAS due to their ability to project power without projecting
vulnerability. But this suggests a government without morals or checks and
balances. Because UAS are used to surveil targets for extended periods,
suggests that leaders are not void of morals. Of course, one could provide
examples where UAS were improperly used and targets not properly identified.
Such an argument against UAS is futile because the same can be said for any
weapon ever created. The problem is not the weapon, but the policies,
procedures, and operators of the weapon. For the most part, UAS are not being
deployed indiscriminately. But when, and if they are, those responsible should
be held accountable. In the meantime, proper respect should be given to UAS
crews for the stressful jobs they perform.
References
Armour, C, & Ross, J. (2017). The health and well-being of military
drone operators and intelligence analysts: A systematic review. Military Psychology 29(2), 83-98. doi: 10.1037/mil0000149
Cable News Network (Producer). (2009). World’s untold stories; Warfare by remote [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auAaY6uWtNI
Fitzsimmons, S., & Sangha, K. (2010). Killing in high definition:
Combat stress among operators of remotely piloted aircraft. Technology, 12, 289 – 292. Retrieved
from https://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2013/Fitzsimmons.pdf
Freiberger, E. (2013, July 18). Just
war theory and the ethics of drone warfare. E-International Relations.
Retrieved from http://www.e-ir.info/2013/07/18/just-war-theory-and-the-ethics-of-drone-warfare/
Jarnot, C. (2012). History. In R. K. Barnhart, S. B. Hottman, D. M.
Marshall, & E. Shappee (Eds.), Introduction
to unmanned aircraft systems (pp. 1-16). New York, NY: CRC Publishing.
Sparrow, R. (2009, March 16). Predators or plowshares? Arms control of robotic
weapons. IEEE Technology and Society
Magazine, 28(1), 25-29. doi: 10.1109/MTS.2009.931862
No comments:
Post a Comment