Debate: Remote-control warfare

What are the pros and cons of drone operations?

Background and Context of Debate:

Ethics: Can pilotless airplanes be morally justified?

Pro

• "Pilotless aircraft can hit targets without placing a pilot in harm's way." The Economist, "Droning on", April 2010 "Remote control warfare has much potential to reduce friendly loss of life simply because its warriors may no longer need to go to war." [1]

Con

• Killing civilians. Attacks on civilian sites (if they had not been so commandeered) "may constitute war crimes. (...) On June 23rd 2009, for example, an attack on a funeral in South Waziristan killed 80 non-combatants." The Economist, "Droning on", April 2010

• Drone operations resemble warfare video games. "... the operators of drones, often on the other side of the world, are far removed from the sight, sound and smell of the battlefield. They may make decisions to attack that a commander on the ground might not, treating warfare as a video game." The Economist, "Droning on", April 2010

Efficiency: Are drone operations crucial for military success?

Pro

• They are useful for assassinations. "On February 17th [2010], for example, Sheikh Mansoor, an al-Qaeda leader in the Pakistani district of North Waziristan, was killed by a drone-borne Hellfire." Economist, "Droning on", April 2010

• "Pilotless planes promise to be cheaper to make and run than conventional fighter jets." BBC News, "How unmanned drones are changing modern warfare", by Chris Bowlby, February 2010

Con

• They are counterproductive. Errors, such as accidental bombing of civilian sites, "are not only tragic, but also counterproductive. Sympathetic local politicians will be embarrassed and previously neutral non-combatants may take the enemy's side." The Economist, "Droning on", April 2010

Future impact: Are drones desirable?

Pro

Click "edit" and write arguments here

Con

• The number of conflicts could increase. While remote control warfare can improve "a government’s ability to impose its foreign policy objectives"(..), "however, with less risk of collateral, governments may also become more willing to start wars to achieve their political ambitions. Thus, the likelihood of proliferating world conflict could increase." [2]

• Possible future inability to act. "The [] reduced need for military risk-takers could prove irresistible to decision makers seeking to minimise front line military manpower levels and budgets. This dilution of military manpower in theatre could adversely affect a Commander’s flexibility to manoeuvre when ’boots on the ground’ are needed." [3]

See also

External links and resources: