Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) take off, land, and fly with no need for human intervention. Human operators are only needed for targeting, and they can be sitting anywhere, far away from the target. The controller used for targeting is modeled after the PlayStation, just like the device that every young video gaming operator grew up with.
Afghanistan and Iraq have proved the value of the robotic technology that is revolutionizing warfare. But what about ethical norms, democratic values, individual rights, and the generally accepted laws of war that have been in place since the horrors of World War II, making it illegal to kill civilians?
Consider the Impact of Unmanned Weapons Systems on War Crimes
The technology is too new to predict its effects on the rules of war. Marc Garlasco, of Human Rights Watch, is quoted by P.W. Singer in his book, Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century: “War crimes need both a violation and intent. A machine has no capacity to want to kill civilians . . . If they (machines) are incapable of intent, are they incapable of war crimes? Who do we go after, the manufacturer, the software engineer, the buyer, the user?”
The U.S. Air Force currently recognizes robot rights, meaning that an aircraft operating without a pilot has the same rights as if a human were flying it. If it “senses” an attack, i.e. is “lighted up” by enemy radar or is threatened, it can legally defend itself.
The Relentless Development of Predators and Robots for War
As the Brookings Institute makes clear, the robotic revolution is unstoppable. When U.S. forces went into Iraq, the original invasion had no robotic systems on the ground. By the end of 2004, there were 150 robots on the ground in Iraq; a year later there were 2,400; by the end of 2008, there were about 12,000 robots of nearly two dozen varieties operating on the ground in Iraq. Some 15,000 robots are estimated to be operating today on the ground while some 7,000 are in the sky. One retired Army officer calls the program the “Army of the Grand Robotic”.
On the ground, robotic killing machines are as accurate in their firepower as the most proficient sniper. It won’t be long before they can be sent off in formations across deserts or through city streets and into, around, over, and through buildings and obstacles. In the air, drones can be linked together in flying swarms.
The American aerospace industry is now concentrating all research and development on "pilotless" aircraft. The U.S. Air Force is training more drone operators than traditional pilots. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are the future not just for fighting wars, but for fighting crime (hovering over drug smugglers, for example) and even issuing speeding tickets (by around 2014, they will issue your ticket directly to your cell phone). The U.S. Navy has unveiled robot jet skis, submersibles, and unmanned sailboats ready to sail automatically, packed with surveillance gear.
Drones get most of the attention, however, because they are so deadly. They can think and they can see through the clouds and in the dark. They can keep vigil for days above a target, something that would drive a pilot mad with boredom. In the unlikely event that a drone is shot down, the far-away operator simply starts operating another UAV.
Does Killing Civilians Long-Distance by Remote Control Make it Morally Acceptable?
Invulnerable U.S. military robots are engaged in Afghanistan against a Taliban force that is fighting without an air force, an enemy that must rely on primitive foot soldiers who fight without night vision. Therefore, after 11 painful and costly years, America should be winning. But it isn't.
Still, killing by drones in Afghanistan, Somalia, and in Yemen has accelerated and is largely accepted in armed conflict. Why not? After all, the U.S. has the right to protect its forces against attacks made by al-Qaeda and its allies. NATO dispatched UAVs to Libya and the U.S. has used them effectively in Pakistan, most notably to monitor the late Osama bin Laden.
If we can assume that agreements are in place with the Pakistani government, drone strikes in that country do not violate its sovereignty. Neither the U.S. nor the Pakistani government is saying much about any agreements, but public opinion about strikes and surveillance in Pakistan has been loudly and sometimes violently anti-American.
The U.S. is Not Alone in the Robot Revolution
Other countries have been developing UAVs for some time. In their February 25. 2010 issue, The Daily Beast reported that drones are being developed in at least 40 other countries, including several that are not friendly to America:
"At least 40 other countries -- from Belarus and Georgia to India, Pakistan, and Russian -- have begun to build, buy, and deploy unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, showcasing their efforts at international weapons expos ranging from the premier Paris Air Show to smaller events in Singapore and Bahrain. In the last six months alone, Iran has begun production on a pair of weapons-ready surveillance drones while China has debuted the Pterodactyl and Sour Dragon, rivals to America's Predator and Global Hawk. All told, two thirds of worldwide investment in unmanned planes in 2010 will be spent by countries other than the United States."
Some organizations in the U.K.,such as the Red Cross, are working to evaluate UAV effects and morality. Back in 2008, Harvard University and Booz Allen Hamilton uncovered and examined some of the issues raised by these technological advancements in warfare. But regarding the future of the robotics revolution, the media in America has been largely silent.
The National Intelligence Council concluded in a recent report, “Mapping the Global Future,” that the United States faces a growing “asymmetric” threat both from other states and from sub-state groups: “While no single country looks within striking distance of rivaling U.S. military power by 2020, more countries will be in a position to make the United States pay a heavy price for any military action they oppose.”
Counting Casualties
The Irish Sun reported on April 14, 2011, that a total of 957 Pakistani civilians were killed in American drone attacks in 2010, according to the Pakistani Human Rights Commission. Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann of the Washington-based New America Foundation reported that 32 per cent of those killed in drone attacks since 2004 were civilians. Their report claimed that 2010 terrorist attacks in Pakistan left 2,542 people dead and 5,062 others injured. At least 1,159 people, including 1,041 civilians, lost their lives in 67 suicide bomb attacks in the country. On Wednesday, October 5, 2011, The Telegraph reported that one in three "militants" killed in U.S. predator drone attacks in Pakistan's remote tribal areas was a civilian, according to a report by an American think tank.
The number of drone attacks has increased dramatically since Barack Obama replaced George W. Bush as U.S. president. There were 45 drone attacks during Mr. Bush's two terms of government, compared with 51 during the first year of President Obama's new administration. In the first two months of this year, up to 140 "militants" have been killed.
Drones are Here to Stay and Kill
Despite the civilian casualty controversy, drone strikes are likely to remain a critical tool for the United States to disrupt al-Qaeda and Taliban operations. The Obama administration has increased its reliance on drones to target "high-value" Taliban and al-Qaeda figures. When U.S.-born al-Qaeda leader and terrorist recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen by a missile fired from an American drone aircraft, it was the first time since the Sept. 11 attacks that an American citizen had been deliberately targeted and killed by American forces. Al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents, was 40.
Since last autumn, drone attacks have killed the Taliban's notorious leader Baitullah Mehsud in South Waziristan, and more recently, it is claimed, his successor Hakimullah Mehsud. In 2008, Pakistani intelligence sources said they had killed Rashid Rauf, the British al-Qaeda militant behind the 2006 transatlantic airliner bomb plot. Osama bin Laden's deputy Ayman al Zawahiri is believed to have made a lucky escape when a drone struck a compound he had recently left. Another top Taliban leader killed in North Waziristan was Mohammed Qari Zafar, who is believed to have organized the 2006 bombing of the American embassy in Karachi.
Changing the Realities of Combat
On August 5, 2009, two Hellfire missiles fired from an American Predator drone crashed through the roof of a house in northwest Pakistan owned by Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud’s father-in-law. Mehsud was lying on the roof. He was obliterated. The explosion also killed his father-in-law, his mother-in-law, his wife, his uncle, a lieutenant, and seven bodyguards.
That attack raises several questions about armed robot attacks. Are they an effective counterterrorism tactic, even though they may cause significant civilian casualties? When will U.S. forces be attacked by a drone? Will American civilians eventually be remotely targeted by some terrorist?
Of course, the future cannot be known. Therefore, it cannot be changed.
Resources:
Singer, P.W., Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century, The Penguin Press, New York, NY, 2009.
Singer, P.W., On Military Robots and the Future of War, http://www.ted.com/talks/pw_singer_on_robots_of_war.html, Filmed February 2009 and posted April 2009.
Boot, Max, "The Paradox of Military Technology," The New Atlantis, Fall Issue, 2006.
John Anderson - John Anderson has worked as a journalist, editor, advertising executive, Internet pioneer, and he has authored four books.
Join the Conversation