Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Military drones, prohibition of
Section C. International relations

The concept of an unmanned military aircraft is almost as old as the use of air power itself; one was first tested in 1916 for the Royal Air Force’s use in the First World War. However, they have, naturally, developed hugely in recent years, and are now in widespread use in military operations around the world. They are also used for numerous purposes; sometimes they are simply for intelligence gathering, but they are also often deployed as part of the USA’s programme of covert assassination of terrorist leaders in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen. Drones began as a tool to support conventional operations on the battlefield, but in 2002, a Predator drone was used by the CIA to kill alleged terrorists in Yemen, and they are now regularly used off the battlefield. Worries that they might fall into the wrong hands were crystallised in 2011, when Iran captured an American RQ-170 drone which had been spying in its airspace. There are question marks about their legitimacy in international law, given that they are typically used for targeted assassinations, but there are no express rules governing their use at present.

Pros

[1] Drones give militaries lethal capabilities that they did not previously possess. In particular, they are able to conduct military operations that would previously have been unacceptable because of the risk to human life involved. The possibility of losing troops and the political costs that come with that are the main restraint on powerful militaries — and particularly the USA and China — that tempers their behaviour in combat. Using drones leads to escalation in conflicts and the deaths of large numbers of civilians which would be prevented by this ban.

[2] Drones, by removing the human element of killing in war, encourage trigger- happy behaviour and so increase the likelihood of civilian casualties. When a person who will bear direct moral responsibility for the consequences of a bombing has to launch a powerful explosive device, they are more likely to adequately balance the need to achieve strategic objectives with the avoidance of civilian death. This is removed completely when the ’buck stops’ with a technician who clicks a mouse thousands of miles away, totally divorced from the situation, and who is more likely to fire on groups of people whose identity is unknown.

[3] Drones are intimately connected to the broader policy of extra-judicial assassination of terrorists outside war zones, which is a highly damaging one. Drones make that policy possible because they do not create the risk of a pilot being shot down over a non-combatant state (who would therefore not be protected by the laws of war), and also because they do not require air bases or carriers in the region. The policy of extra-judicial assassination is a clear violation of international law, and radicalises populations and governments which were not previously involved at all in the ’War on Terror’.

[4] The harms of drone warfare are inherent to the drones themselves. No one seriously believes that drone ’regulation’ would do much to limit their usage. Rather, a total ban in international law would make it easier to control them; they could then be impounded or shot down if found, and sanctions could be imposed on countries seeking to develop them to inhibit those countries from getting the relevant technology. Regulation simply represents a tacit acceptance by the international community that drones are acceptable.

Cons

[1] Drones do not create new military operations; rather, they are an alternative to fighter-bombers on missions which would otherwise have had to take place anyway. In its Kosovo bombing campaign (1998/99), NATO instructed planes to fly at 45,000 feet to avoid pilot casualties, which is above the height at which it is possible to distinguish civilians and combatants. Drones, because they can fly lower and so get better images of their targets, are actually more able to be discriminating, and so are less likely to kill civilians.

[2] There is nothing necessarily dehumanising about simply being far away from the target; fighter pilots also do not see the pain or suffering they cause, but watch it on a camera from far away. There are many advantages to the ’pilots’ being on the ground rather than in the plane. The most important one is that, because pilots are not in personal danger, they are less likely to lash out and fire in panic, but can instead remain cool-headed about their strategies. Moreover, because they can be supervised more readily by commanders and given information by analysts who know what the target looks like, in consequence, civilian deaths are much less likely.

[3] Extra-judicial assassinations are not enabled by drones, and would continue regardless of them. The USA has determined that many of its greatest threats lie outside its borders, and is determined to pursue them, regardless of national sovereignty. If it were unable to use drones, it would simply turn to more dangerous methods, such as manned aircraft or on- the-ground Special Forces teams, which risk higher casualties and more damage. Moreover, drone attacks may not be in violation of international law, as they specifically target those who threaten terrorist acts, and are often used in areas where there is little or no meaningful governmental control.

[4] It is inevitable that some countries will seek to use drone warfare, regardless of whether others ban it, or even if they are expressly prohibited in international law. Given that, it is better that a system be established for monitoring and regulating drone warfare, with clear protocols as to acceptable usage, rather than allowing total free rein. If, for instance, all drones had to be registered, there would be less danger of them being unsafe or falling into criminal or terrorist hands. Moreover, it might be possible to prevent Russia, China and Iran fitting them with extreme weapons to make them more destructive.

Possible motions

This House would ban the use of drones.

This House believes the use of drones is inhuman.

Related topics

Pacifism

Armaments, limitations on conventional

Democracy, imposition of

Dictators, assassination of