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." "The Psychology of Remote Control Warfare", by Wing Commander Pete York, GBR AF

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

"Observers note that one third of all casualties are civilians. According to Rozoff, approximately “160 people have been killed in drone missile strikes in Pakistan in slightly over two months this year” (March 2010). Georgetown adjunct professor Gary Solis, commenting on the CIA drone program, suggests that the civilian operators working out of Langley can be considered “unlawful combatants” (Washington Post, March 12, 2010)." "Drone Warfare in the 21st Century", March 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

• Lack of collective morale. "Deploying forward with like-minded colleagues, dressing in uniform and living in austere conditions give military forces identity and a sense of belonging. Both are good for military morale and, therefore, the achievement of military objectives. Military commanders will need to devise means of replicating this collective morale for the RCW warrior, who may never physically meet his contemporaries in combat." "The Psychology of Remote Control Warfare", by Wing Commander Pete York, GBR AF

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

• Drones are perfect tools for unconventional, single-target operations. Drones enable us to assassinate important figures in the radical world or destroy manufactures or factories crucial for guerrilla and the like without sacrificing a single troop or lives of civilians. "The Pros and Cons of Killer Drones", the Atlantic Wire, by B. F. Carlson, August 2009

Con

• Drones 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

• Lack of situational awareness. Most military operations require "that warriors at all levels have a profound understanding of the effects they are aiming to achieve. Learning by seeing, feeling and ‘suffering’ alongside one’s adversary all contribute to this situational understanding." People operating drones from far away have none of these inputs. "The Psychology of Remote Control Warfare", by Wing Commander Pete York, GBR AF

• Drones undermine cooperation with allies. Bobby Ghosh and Mark Thompson in Time say that Pakistanis despise pilotless aircrafts: "The accusation of cowardice is especially damaging in the tribal areas, where bravery is regarded as an essential quality in an ally." "The Pros and Cons of Killer Drones", The Atlantic Wire, by B. F. Carlson, August 2009

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." "The Psychology of Remote Control Warfare", by Wing Commander Pete York, GBR AF

• 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." "The Psychology of Remote Control Warfare", by Wing Commander Pete York, GBR AF

• "Surgical" killings won't root out terrorism, says Spencer Ackerman. "What we've learned, at painful cost, over years and years and years, is that the issue isn't the leader of an extremist movement. It's the network that supports it, and the conditions that allow it to take root among a population." "The Pros and Cons of Killer Drones", the Atlantic Wire, by B. F. Carlson, August 2009

See also

External links and resources:

• "The Pros and Cons of Killer Drones", by B. F. Carlson, The Atlantic Wire
• "Drone Warfare in the 21st Century"
• "The Pros and Cons of Drone Wars", by Daniel Goure, Ph.D., Lexington Institute, February 2010