Ethics
and Morality in Warfare (UAS)
Scott
E. Leishman
ASCI
638- Human Factors in Unmanned Aero Sys
Assignment
9.5
Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University-Worldwide
January
26, 2017
With
the onslaught of wars that we have encountered, in pursuit of combating the
global war on terrorism, many unmanned systems have contributed to the success
rate of finding, targeting, and eliminating terrorists and terrorist
organizations. The general public was first made aware of this usage during the
attacks that occurred after the Terrorist attacks in 2001. Warfare operations
that included unmanned systems has expanded exponentially, and can be
attributed to advancements in our technological development, as well as
refining our human factors. Because human factors have not been completely
mitigated, we still have many serious challenges ahead for employment of these
systems in remote destinations. Other outstanding factors include the ethical
and moral stigma attached to employing these unmanned systems, especially if
these systems are associated with distinction and proportionality.
Traditionally these concerns are addressed in the uniformed code of military
justice (UCMJ) as well as other specific militaries laws, like armed conflict
and rules of engagement; when we include unmanned systems in this discussion,
we need to be cognizant of the idea that certain boundaries of these laws will
need to be readdressed due to the lack of clarity.
When discussing this realm of unmanned aircraft systems
(UAS), we need to understand the many different, and often complex and varied
human factors involved. We need to understand how to effectively use UAS and
what impacts human factors may have. In each phase of an operation, a different
human factor comes in to be an influence, and we need to address those factors.
Amongst the most common and often times most detrimental human factor issue in
any operation, is the lack of situational awareness. This generally occurs in due part to the
common use of the command and control method, referred to as direct interface.
This is described as an area where the pilot flying the UAS is interfacing with
that UAS via controls and a video stream that has been equipped on the aircraft
(Fong, & Thorpe, 2001).
Within the UAS environment, direct interface has proven
to be one of the most challenging, as well as most common area of a loss of
situational awareness, and experts agree (Fong, & Thorpe, 2001). Frequently
pilots are unable to detect terrain and obstruction clearences due to the usage
of direct interface, resulting in catastrophe.
Another key issue with this is the high demand for a cognitive intensive
workload to a single person; using this direct interface method, many times the
pilot is stuck in a human to machine interface, which is not an easy way to
keep and maintain a constant level of awareness (Trouvain & Research
Establishment for Applied Sciences Wachtberg-Werthhoven, 2006).
When we talk about ethical and moral issues, warfare in
of itself is wrought with these types of issues; adding UAS to this equation
and any operations carried out become substantially more complex. The
principles of distinction and proportionality serve as two of the most critical
issues in regards to moral and ethical issues.
While UAS have given our allied forces a distinctive advantage, we still
face two very important challenges that need to be addressed. Again,
distinction and proportionality are the primary concerns. When discussing the
topic of distinction, we are discussing the purposeful disparity between
civilians and soldiers, as well as properties and military objectives alike
(Kreps & Kaag, 2012).
Because
distinction averts and excludes intentional attack or use of force against civilians
and their properties, we need to understand proportionality; proportionality
refers to using a suitable amount of force to achieve a specific military
objective, without unnecessary damage to civilians. This idea of proportionality then falls on
the UAS operator, who then has to ensure that they are doing anything and
everything to consider what harm they will bring to a civilian population,
while gaining a tactical advantage in the battlefield, and that that advantage
outweighs the damage to civilians (Kreps & Kaag, 2012).
We need to understand how to adequately employ UAS and
what ramifications continued employment of UAS will mean in warfare. We have to
consider that less ground forces are utilized to complete a successful
prosecution of a target when comparing it to use without UAS. Accordingly,
these legal forms of warfare, allow a nation to protect a service member and
are a long term investment into the National security of that country. We still
need to consider the ethical and moral issues at bay, and need to keep those
issues within the acceptable boundaries and constraints of UAS employment in a
wartime setting. Ultimately having improved capabiliites will help to better
prepare us for issues such as distinction and proportionality, because
targeting systems can be more advanced, use of deadly force can be concentrated
on a much more specific area, and smaller weapon systems can be developed that
generate enough lethal force, with minimal damage to civilian populations.
References
Fong, Terrence and Charles Thorpe. Autonomous
Robots 11.1 (2001): 9-18. Web. 26 Jan. 2017. DOI: 10.1023/a:1011295826834.
Kreps, Sarah and John Kaag. "The Use Of
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles In Contemporary Conflict: A Legal And Ethical
Analysis". Polity 44.2 (2012): 260-285. Web. 26 Jan.
2017. DOI: 10.1057/pol.2012.2.
