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.