Abstract
Several robotic automation systems, such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), are being used in combat today. This evokes ethical questions. In this paper, it is argued that UAVs, more than any other weapon, may determine which normative theory the interpretation of the laws of war (LOW) will be based on. UAVs have advantages in terms of reducing casualties for the UAV possessor, but they may at the same time make war seem more like a risk-free enterprise, much like a computer game, lowering the threshold for starting a war. This indicates the importance of revising the LOW, or adding some rules that focus specifically on UAVs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Sometimes the word system is used (unmanned aircraft system), making the abbreviation UAS.
The Phalanx system is an example of such a system (see U.S. Navy “Phalanx Close-in Weapons Systems”, United States Navy Factfile, http://www.navymil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=800&ct=2).
U.S. Army SBIR Solicitation 07.2, Topic A07-032 “Multi-Agent Based Small Unit Effects Planning and Collaborative Engagement with Unmanned Systems”, pp. 57–68, 2007. The Congress issued, in 2001, a mandate that stated that by 2010 one third of all deep strike aircraft should be unmanned. See Adams, T., “Future Warfare and the Decline of Human Decision making”, Parameters, U.S. Army War College Quarterly, Winter 2001–2002, pp. 51–71. And in 2010, the US Army would spend more money on UAVs than on regular airplanes.
The first hunter-killer UAV used by the US Air Force is the MQ-9 Reaper (The MQ-9 Reaper is a scaled-up version of the Predator), larger, faster, and more powerful, it is also the deadliest, which has served in Afghanistan since September 2007, and Iraq since 2008. These UAVs are piloted by operators located in Nevada. Reaper was designed from the outset as a hunter-killer. It can carry up to 14 Hellfire missiles or other weapons such as 500-pound, laser-guided bombs. RQ-4A Global Hawk is the Air Force's endurance drone, able to cruise at around 400 mph for 35 h. It has an operational ceiling of 65,000 ft, and from this altitude it can scan an area the size of Illinois (40,000 nautical square miles) in just 24 h. It is equipped with radar and infrared, as well as optical sensors. (Arkin, R.C., Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots, CRC Press, 2009, p.56) Today, humans—not robots—are interpreting the LOW. But in the future, the UAV itself may be the one that need to interpret these laws, at least in the Jus in Bello category. The US Navy is examining the legal ramifications of the deployment of autonomous lethal systems in the battlefield, observing that a legal review is required of any new weapons system prior to its acquisition to ensure that it complies with the LOW. Work is being done to create an ethics code in order for military robots to understand the LOW (ROE). (http://hellojoenguyen.com/science/uav-machines-with-ethics/)
It is, however, interesting to note that in a survey made by the Army Research Office, one third felt that a robot can be responsible for its actions. (Arkin, R.C., Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots, CRC Press, 2009, p.56)
For a presentation and discussion of this tradition, see for instance Walzer, M., Just and Unjust Wars, Perseus Books Group, 2006.
Examples of this can be found in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the 1999 war in Kosovo, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. See Asaro, P., “How Just Could a Robot War be?” 5 th European Computing and Philosophy Conference, Twente, NL, June 2007.
Thanks M. Dubois for pointing this out.
Radsen, John, a former lawyer for the CIA: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/10/jane-mayer-predators-drones-pakistan.html#ixzz0izsIBXtv
UAVs are the favorite weapon of choice right now against Al Qaeda, and it is claimed that it has been effective in killing a lot of people the US wants to see dead. According to the CIA, they have killed more than half of the 20 most wanted Al Qaeda terrorist suspects in Pakistan, but at the same time have inflamed anti-American sentiment since they have also killed hundreds of civilians.
See discussions in, for instance, Arkin, R.C., Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots, CRC Press, 2009 and RUSI (Royal United Services Institute) for Defence and Security Studies, “The Ethics and Legal Implications of Unmanned Vehicles for Defence and Security Purposes”, Workshop webpage, Feb 27, 2008, http://www.rusi.org/events/ref:E47385996DA7D3. Note also that arguments against automated weaponry date back a thousand years. The crossbow was banned by Pope Innocent II in 1139 for use against Christians, due to its immoral point-and-clock interface, which enabled killing at a distance.
Bourke points out that there is a “technological imperative” to make full use of new equipment provided.Bourke, J., An Intimate History of Killing, Basic Books 1999.
See, for instance, Grossman (1996).
Predator pilot’s stress far from remote: http://www.lurj.com/news/26412169.html.
Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out.
References
Arkin, R. C. (2009). Governing lethal behavior in autonomous robots. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Armstrong, M. (2008). Combat robots and perception management. Serviam, May/June 2008.
Bourke, J. (1999). An intimate history of killing. New York: Basic Books.
Brandt, R. B. (1972). Utilitarianism and the rules of war. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(2), 145–165.
Davis, D. (2008). Who decides: Man or machine? Armed Forces Journal.
Fellous, J.-M., & Arbib, M. (Eds.). (2005). Who needs emotions? The brain meets the robot. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foss, M. (2008). What are autonomous weapon systems and what ethical issues do they raise, June 27, http://marekfoss.org/works/Autonomous_Weapons.pdf.
French, S. E. (2003). Code of the warrior. Exploring warrior values past and present. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Grossman, D. (1995). On killing: The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society. Little, Brown and Company.
Grossman, D. (1996). On killing: The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society. New York: Little, Brown and Company.
Hursthouse, R. (2002). On virtue ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ignatieff, M. (2000). Virtual war. Kosovo and beyond. London: Chatto & Windus.
Magnuson, S. (2007). Robo soldiers. National Defense (pp. 36–40). September 2007.
McIntyre, A. (2008). Doctrine of double effect. The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/double-effect/>.
Orend, B. (2008). War. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition). URL= http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/war/.
Sherman, N. (2005). Stoic warriors: The ancient philosophy behind the military mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sidgwick, H. (2010). Elements of politics. New York: Nabu Press.
Singer, P. W. (2009). Wired for war. The robotics revolution and conflict in the 21st century. New York: The Penguin Press.
U.S. Army SBIR Solicitation 07.2, Topic A07-032. (2007). Multi-agent based small unit effects planning and collaborative engagement with unmanned systems (pp. 57–68).
Walzer, M. (2006). Just and unjust wars. New York: The Perseus Books Group.
Further Reading
Drones in Pakistan.
Mayer, J. The predator war. The New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_mayer.
Predator pilot’s stress far from remote: http://www.lurj.com/news/26412169.html.
United States Navy Factfile, http://www.navymil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=800&ct=2.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Johansson, L. Is It Morally Right to Use Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in War?. Philos. Technol. 24, 279–291 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-011-0033-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-011-0033-8