Unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) have
always been strongly associated with warfare.
Historically, UASs have been utilized during times of war for the
purposes of reconnaissance, surveillance, defense and targeting. These UASs were designed with the intention
of performing tasks that were deemed to be too risky or dangerous for standard
manned aircraft. Moreover, UASs afforded
pilots the ability to complete these risky missions without necessity of
placing themselves or their crew in physical danger.
Studies have repeatedly indicated that UASs
were designed to replace manned aircraft during war for tasks that were
considered to be dangerous, dirty, and dull, also known as the three D’s of a
consistent operational pattern (Barnhart, Shappee, & Marshall, 2011). This was particularly an issue with manned
aircraft as pilots in war were typically placed in situations where there was a
significant likelihood of risk to the pilot and crew. For example, an enemy may be targeting the
manned aircraft for takedown. A UAS
could perform the same task in this situation, but reduce or eliminate risk to
the pilot and crew by replacing the manned aircraft. As a result, there are various human factors,
ethical, and moral issues to consider in regards to the use of UASs in warfare.
It is this author’s opinion that UASs
should continue to be used in warfare.
The primary reason for this is due to its benefits to reduce human
risk. As previously mentioned, replacing
manned aircraft with unmanned aircraft in the line of fire can significantly
decrease casualties of war. Sending a
UAS to complete a risky or dangerous mission can and often does result in the
protection of lives that may have otherwise been lost if the task had been
performed by a manned aircraft. Further,
this also helps protect against certain human factors risks.
Pilots are susceptible to many
environmental factors including fatigue, temperature, air pressure, noise and
vibration stress among others. Most, if
not all, of these issues can be easily resolved by sending a UAS instead of a
manned aircraft. Since the operator is
controlling the UAS remotely, they are not affected by the physical stressors
(vibration, noise, etc). However, this
may present new human factors issues.
For example, although a pilot of a UAS may not suffer from the same form
of fatigue as a manned aircraft pilot, this does not mean they will not suffer
fatigue at all. In fact, the task of
monitoring their screen for hours on end can end up being just as
fatiguing. This is why shiftwork and
necessary sleep would be critical to help eliminate the issue of fatigue. Along with some human factors problems, the
use of UASs can also present some ethical and moral dilemmas.
Currently, UASs are capable of executing
lethal force; however this is something that is regulated. This has its benefits and its drawbacks. UASs present technological capabilities that
can make targeting and eliminating enemies of war efficient and
successful. The clear benefit is that
battles can be ‘won’ without needing to step foot on soil. Instead, operators are able to carry out
missions and eliminate targets remotely.
Unfortunately, this can also be viewed as a drawback as it may present
some ethical issues. For example, some
may argue that removing the operator from the war field isolates them from the
environment, thereby producing a sort of disconnect which may make it easier
for them to take lethal action without necessarily considering morality. In a sense, it makes warfare appear more like
a video game, and less real, thereby removing some of the liability from the
UAS operator. Contrarily, manned
aircraft literally immerse the pilot in the heart of the action. In this way, it becomes much more difficult,
if not impossible, for the pilot to disassociate him or herself from warfare. When a pilot of a manned aircraft takes
lethal action, it is likely to affect them more so than an remote operator of a
UAS. However, these are issues that can
be mitigated with training, briefing, and debriefing.
Although this author believes that UASs
remove a layer of moral boundaries, it is still this author’s opinion that UASs
should continue to be used in warfare.
The countless lives that UASs can save by implementing them in war
outweighs the drawbacks. Currently, UASs
can serve many purposes in war. Not only
can they be deployed to eliminate targets, but they can also serve as decoy
targets as well. This helps reduce
threat to actual manned aircraft as well as soldiers and can ultimately save
many lives. However, as with any piece
of technology, there is always room for improvement.
Future considerations should carefully
assess the lethality of UASs particularly with autonomous UASs. Although lethal use is often necessary in
warfare, automated lethality should be assessed with caution. If an operator of
an autonomous UAS is considering using lethal force, this could cause many
problems. In military remote operations,
the operator may spot a target. The
operator must then decide whether or not to engage the target based on four
factors: previous knowledge/known factors, danger posed by the subject, the
benefit of detaining the subject, and the probability of successfully detaining
the subject (Straub, 2013). When
operating UAS, a human being is responsible for making these judgment calls. However, autonomous UASs have the capability
of making this decision without human input.
Due to the high-risk nature of warfare, this author suggests that it is
preferable to have a human making lethal decisions rather than an autonomous
UAS.
Conclusively, although UASs should
continue to be used in warfare, automated lethality should not be used as a
person should always be in the loop for moral considerations.
References
Barnhart,
R. K., Shappee, E., and Marshall, D. M. (2011). Introduction to Unmanned
Aircraft
Systems. London, GBR: CRC Press.
Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com
Straub,
J. (2013). Unmanned aerial systems:
consideration of the use of force for law
enforcement applications. Technology
in Society. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.12.004
