Drone warfare
governments look to be the most militarily advanced, the most effective uses of drones will thrive and, in the future, become commonplace. Therefore, notwithstanding possible ethical issues with drone warfare, I see all developments as mere evolutionary stages in the human cycle. Despite this, it is possible to argue that the technological progressions of the 21 st century raise significant moral dilemmas in the field of drone warfare. If a drone’s software is augmented with AI, it could be capable of making decisions, and ultimately lethal decisions, by itself. Ethically, this reduces how we as humans value death, because it allows a computer programme to kill purely based on an input and is not the result of a conscious human decision. As examined by Thibault de Swarte in the article, ‘Artificial Life and Robotics’ , it could conversely be possible for a computer programme to have a better capacity to exercise what we might call ‘human values’ than a human, as any drone would remain unaffected by human indecision or bias. 4 Moreover, I would argue that the absence of human agency that may become part of the evolution of drones is similar to how a gun or automatic weapon works; the mechanism of death is still mechanical. In addition, the use of a drone to kill is not at all dissimilar to the mass, indiscriminate bombings that took place during the Second World War, where human agency set the attack in motion, but was not involved in the choice of which individuals would die. I would second that drone warfare is perhaps less ethically troubling than this mindless form of death, as their technological superiority and precision ensures that every kill is thought out and clearly authorized by a pilot who can see all that the drone sees and targets, unlike a plane pilot who drops a bomb wherever there are signs of human habitation. Another issue that can be raised with drone warfare is an erosion of countries’ sovereignty as wealthier western powers carry out drone strikes in other countries with no warning or repercussions. For example, many critics would argue that the territorial sovereignty of Pakistan has been breached systematically over recent decades by the US Government and its allies, as part of the ‘war on terror’ . As mentioned by Maria Bastos in her analysis of the breaches in Pakistan’s s overeignty, we must use a modern definition of sovereignty to frame opinions on drone attacks. 5 Westphalian sovereignty dictates that each state should have exclusive sovereignty over its territory. 6 Using this definition to underpin views on drone warfare, it is logical to conclude that the uses of drones in Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan are blatant violations of a modern conception of sovereignty, which undermine international law. This problem is unique to drone warfare, where it becomes possible to carry out military operations in other countries without sending a large ground force, and therefore some call for a revision of international law and its enforcement. Post-9/11, the western view on human security has shifted to a strike-first policy, as examined by Debrix and Barder, who assessed that a newfound military approach believes that 'in order to preserve life from the disasters and atrocities of war, liberal regimes have to conduct wars (or pacification campaigns) by deploying techniques and strategies that 4 This idea of artificial intelligence having the possibility to execute human morals better than humans is elegantly described by Thomas Powers as a ‘Kantian Machine’ (see Powers 2006), although his idea may provide too inflexible an ethical framework for uses in complex warfare scenarios. 5 Bastos 2014. 6 It is important to note that Krasner defines four versions of modern sovereignty, which aim to reflect factors such as migration and the state of international conflict. Perhaps it is better to limit a definition of sovereignty to the stipulations of current international law; see Krasner 2001.
179
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting