Tuesday, October 2, 2018

Ethical and Moral Dilemma of UAVs



               UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Systems) have been around for much longer than the general population is aware. Though these older systems weren’t finely perfected through advanced technology, they were all UAV just the same. Mostly used for surveillance and taking videos/photos, these UAV’s were highly experimental and generally didn’t last long. Manned planes were the dominating force because radio technology limited the reliability of UAVs.  The culture back then was almost very resistant to UAVs, describing them as toys. Another use of UAVs in the older times was target practice for manned pilots. The manned aircrafts were also much easier ethically. Bombing runs, precision strikes, and air support were all planed. From routes all the way to the pilot releasing the bombs, it was structured and organized. Once UAVs were armed, more specifically the predator, many concerns were highlighted. Who should give the call to launch a missile? Is it different from a manned plane? Is a UAV with a warhead legal under international treaties?
               Modern day, one of the most highly controversial topics surrounding the military is the use of drones to perform precision strikes on high value targets. Concerns vary from misinformation of a target, civilian casualties, and the effect of this on the pilot. In the book Predator, the original armed Predator 3034, was the first drone ever to perform a deadly strike. Following this milestone for military drones was a laundry list of legal and ethical questions that delayed progress. To begin off, the culture behind UAVs was miniscule and unsupported. Higher ranking individuals considered them toys and very unreliable. Although they were unreliable to begin off, they could be much more than toys. Pilots didn’t care for the drones either, which made finding pilots even harder. Once the technology started gaining traction and support, there were still many people that did not believe in this technology.
               Once the predator started to get serious support and use, people started seeing how useful this system was. One of the biggest uses was to keep an eye on potentially deadly targets. The most notable one was Osama Bin Laden. After watching him for a considerable time, the predator support team realized how useful it would be to be able to have a “see and shoot” system. The predator’s main job during this time was surveillance and buddy lazing for airstrikes. If the team had the chance to strike, they should be able to without having to wait for an air strike. This came from an incident where the predator drones crew was deciding whether to laze a target, they kept on waiting for confirmation when they overheard a nearby airport getting ready to deploy a jet. They decided that if the enemy saw the drone, they would shoot it down and cause a fiasco for the U.S government. So, they backed the predator drone off. If they would have been able to bomb the target, being Osama Bin Laden, they could have potentially prevented 9/11.
               Once the drone was finally in the process of being armed, they were bogged down by bureaucratic laws. One treaty signed by the U.S and formerly known Soviet Union, barred the use of anti-ballistic missile systems. Lawyers and bureaucrats argued that putting a Hellfire missile on a predator drone could constitute a system described in this treaty. They could not do any flight testing or put a missile on this system until they had the green light to do so. Eventually, they argued that the predator drone does not have a warhead in its nose, but rather on a separate pod, and the project was a go. Even after the project was completed, the question of who gets the fire the missile was still up in the air. The chain of command for giving an order was completely unorganized. Even to this day, there is still debate about who should give the order to launch a precision strike.
               In opinion, given good information and actionable intelligence, drone strikes are war marvels. Being able to loiter around a target suspected of carrying out a terrorist attack, then assassinate them when sure of their identity, can give the upper hand in the war against terrorists. Although this can be useful, this can all take a deep dive into tragedy. Civilian casualties are the biggest concern to me. It is best for the nation when the United States takes out a terrorist, but if you kill civilians at the same time, you may have just made more terrorists. Loss of innocent life is truly a tragedy that needs to be avoided at all costs. It is not only illegal and backwards to our cause, but it can destroy the life of people who have no part in terror and only want to be left alone. Some people equate “pulling the trigger” on a strike in a drone is no different than a video game. Flash of light on a screen of the missile being launched at a white glob, then boom target is gone. Ensuring no civilian casualties should be number one concern when performing a precision strike on a high value target.
               Another ethical concern is privacy. While to me I don’t understand the big deal behind this one, many people do. Should the government be able to watch the civilians with an unmanned aerial system such as a predator drone? Personally, satellites and spy planes, such as the legendary SR-71, have had the opportunity to spy on anyone since they were first designed. Both old technology but principle is still the same. Relating this to drone technology is no different. Should a random civilian be able to fly his/her drone over your property? When is it considered stalking or spying? Can the owner take counter-UAV actions? I think that adults are (hopefully) mature and smart enough to tell the different between someone stalking you and someone taking a nice picture of a sunset. If the drone is hovering over your house and taking pictures of inside your window, there’s a good chance they aren’t enjoying the sunset. So, in my opinion, if there is someone flying that close to your property taking odd photos, yes you should be able to take it down. Even that spurs many questions, what is too close? What legal way can you shoot it down? Who pays for damages in this scenario?
               Ethical and moral dilemmas surrounding the drone world will most likely never go away, but instead evolve into different questions. Drone have the fantastic ability to perform missions never heard of before with relatively cheap technology. Even with the expensive military technology, drones can perform very dangerous missions in enemy airspace with no danger to human life, only an expendable machine. Like every other machine and tool, they can help mankind with a plethora of issues to make life easier. And on the opposite end, they can also have the power to deal great damage. Responsibility and teaching each other about these tools can make a great impact.
                

No comments:

Post a Comment