Ethical
and Moral Issues in UAS
Shawn
M. Wyne
ASCI
638 – Human Factors in Unmanned Systems
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University
Abstract
Over the last decade,
Unmanned Aerospace Systems (UAS) have become a significant part of warfare.
They are a tool for accomplishing a number of military objectives, including
employing weapons. This paper compares and contrasts the moral and ethical uses
of UAS with those of more traditional weapons.
Keywords:
UAS, remote warfare, ethics
Morality
in UAS
Unmanned aircraft have
been in use since almost the beginning of flight. Early versions were even
weaponized, made into remote controlled unmanned suicide machines. But for
decades, their use was limited by general technology, and they were never
employed in any measurable number, nor were they particularly effective. The
biggest gains in unmanned systems came in those of satellites throughout the
Cold War. But in the last two decades this niche technology has grown and
expanded into a useful industry and unmanned aircraft have become the norm for
governments and militaries across the globe. As with all new technologies, its
emergence raises new concerns to whether it should be used.
Whether or not to use a
weapon requires first a discussion on what is legally allowed. UAS themselves
are not actually a weapon, but they are a platform for employing weapons. In
their current state, they employ the same weapons that are employed from other
aircraft. Since the weapons themselves are allowed, then UAS are technically
allowed as well. The second point to consider is the targeting employed by UAS.
At least for the US military, targeting requirements are identical for manned
and unmanned aircraft. Primary rules for legal targeting are to follow the
principles of discrimination, proportionality, and military necessity
(Johansson 2011). The laws of armed conflict apply no matter the type of weapon
or the platform that employs it. If a target is legal, then it can be struck by
UAS or manned aircraft alike.
The real concern over the
use of UAS is the level of ease at which force is applied. The evolution of
military technology has always embraced methods to inflict damage onto the
enemy while limiting risk to oneself. From archers, to rifles, to artillery, to
cruise missiles, distance affords the attacker a level of safety. The risk of
harm to one’s own forces is often a deterring factor for warfare. A risk exists
that increasing the ease with which one can engage in warfare will increase its
use. I think this is a false analogy, however, for two reasons. First, is that
not all forces abide by this logic in the first place. Dictators may send their
forces to battle with no regard for their losses, or peoples like Japan in WWII
or currently in North Korea will fight without question if told to do so,
without any reservation. Secondly, nations that are considered more reasonable
in modern times also must consider the open nature of the global community. Just
because going to war might be easier, there are still consequences that cannot
be avoided, even if those consequences are not direct military retaliation. I
do not think UAS themselves will lend nations to more easily engage in warfare.
An additional concern is
the risk of abuse of the new technology. I think that is a legitimate concern,
but not one that requires any special care. All military technologies can be
abused by those who wield them. Additionally, the States that may be inclined
to use this type of technology against others, or even its own people, are not
particularly considerate of rules anyway. Some States already abuse their power
with more traditional tools. I do not believe an otherwise just government will
begin to abuse their citizens just because of this additional technology.
The US Air Force has made
a deliberate effort to re-brand UAS by calling them Remotely Piloted Aircraft
(RPAs). This is an important distinction that the aircraft, even though there
is not human inhabiting it, is still under deliberate control of an operator.
The aircrew are trained to fly UAS in the same ways they are trained to fly
manned aircraft. As such, they follow the same rules and procedures as any
other aircraft. But they can do some things better than ever before. A fighter
jet striking a target may only have minutes to identify a target and decide to
employ weapons. In some cases the pilot never sees the target at all, but
relies on someone else passing a coordinate and the fighter blindly release a
GPS guided weapon. There are procedures that must be followed, but it is one
way they operate. UAS have the ability to operate for much longer periods of
time. A single UAS might orbit a target area for more than 40 hours, and may be
relieved by subsequent UAS in turn for days or weeks of constant coverage.
Using very detailed cameras, the UAS can collect information on a target like
never before. Not only can they be surer of a target’s validity, they can be
extremely precise in determining the level of collateral damage that might
result from an attack. I have personally seen many valid targets not be struck
at all because a UAS could identify civilians in the area, and have seen UAS
wait for days until a clear shot is available. The level of detail provided by
UAS allows a level of restraint not possible with manned aircraft. A fighter
may have only minutes to decide whether to strike, and if they don’t the target
may be lost. Even though, legally speaking, collateral damage may be
acceptable, the global community is insisting that modern warfare limit
civilian casualties to almost none. Avoiding “international censure” has become
a deliberate goal of governments (Kreps & Kaag 2012). This task is made
more difficult without using UAS.
UAS, like manned
aircraft, missiles, artillery, and tanks, are a tool for accomplishing military
objectives in warfare. They still follow the same laws of armed conflict
applicable to all other fighting. They also allow more precision and surety in
an environment that historically contains neither. As long as they are used
responsibly, UAS are no more of a moral risk than any other long-distance
conventional weapons that have come before them. The issues of when to use
force are still a point of argument and discussion, but which tools to use
should not exclude UAS simply because they might be misused.
References
Johansson,
L. (2011, June 10). Is it Morally Right
to Use Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in War? doi:
10.1007/s13347-011-03308
Kreps,
S. and Kaag, J. (2012 Apr). The Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Contemporary
Conflict: A Legal and Ethical Analysis. Polity
44.2: 260-285.
