The Role of Drones in Contemporary Warfare (original) (raw)
Related papers
Does the advent of drones mark a fundamental change in the conduct of war
The emergence and development of the Unmanned Arial Vehicles (UAV), generally known as drones has revolutionised the conduct of war. Although the primary purpose of drones was to do surveillance, reconnaissance and intelligence gathering, they were armed to be used as a new military tactic for counterinsurgency campaigns, or the so called the 'War on Terror'. Drone use in warfare has been one of the most controversial issues at international level, with a high scepticism about its legacy and effectiveness. Therefore in order to crystallize the fundamental changes in the warfare brought about since the emergence of drones, this paper would initially consider the historical emergence of drones by answering the questions how, when and why they were invented. Secondly, it would illustrate on the major differences of contemporary drone warfare to pre-modern and modern warfare. Thirdly, it would focus on its strength and weakness in conducting wars as a weapon for targeted killings, and finally it would conclude by assessing the moral, ethical and legal aspects of drones and their future proliferation. The history of drones can be referred back as far as 18th century, during which around 200 pilotless balloons containing bombs were used by Austrians against the city of Venice in 1849. Later on, similar balloons were used in US civil war in 1862 and Spanish-American War in 1898 for the purpose of reconnaissance and bombardment.
From a View to a Kill: Drones and Late Modern War
Theory, Culture & Society, 2011
The proponents of late modern war like to argue that it has become surgical, sensitive and scrupulous, and remotely operated Unmanned Aerial Vehicles or ‘drones’ have become diagnostic instruments in contemporary debates over the conjunction of virtual and ‘virtuous’ war. Advocates for the use of Predators and Reapers in counterinsurgency and counterterrorism campaigns have emphasized their crucial role in providing intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance, in strengthening the legal armature of targeting, and in conducting precision-strikes. Critics claim that their use reduces late modern war to a video game in which killing becomes casual. Most discussion has focused on the covert campaign waged by CIA-operated drones in Pakistan, but it is also vitally important to interrogate the role of United States Air Force-operated drones in Afghanistan. In doing so, it becomes possible to see that the problem there may not be remoteness and detachment but, rather, the sense of proxim...
Drone Warfare-A Critical Appraisal
2013
The US-led global war on terror, the US Af-Pak strategy, the phenomenon of terrorism and the employment of predator drones by the US administration in various parts of the world and particularly in Pakistan has drawn criticism on drone warfare. The introduction of armed drones to kill individuals or destroy targets inside other countries' territories has raised various important questions of the rationale, necessity, targeting strategy and mechanism of drone operations. Moreover, the important notions of state sovereignty, monopoly over use of force and territorial integrity have also been put to test by the use of force in the form of armed drones, against individuals inside other states, without the formal declaration of wars. In addition, whether global war on terror is to be conducted and fought inside only a few selected states or anywhere where the terrorists are actually or perceived to be based or not. Lastly, the technological, psychological, moral, social and legal imp...
THE IMPORTANCE OF DRONES IN MODERN WARFARE AND ARMED CONFLICTS
Kutbilim Journal of Social Sciences Vol.1, Issue 2 , 2021
This article analyzes the importance of drones in modern warfare and armed conflicts. It explains how states and non-state actors use drones for various purposes. The United States of America was the first country globally to use drones twenty years ago to eliminate dangerous terrorists. George W. Bush was the first president of USA who used drones for counterterrorism operations in different countries. Drones proved to be very effective tool during the war on terror. If USA used drones only as killing machines for the elimination of terrorists, Azerbaijan was the first country that used them for military purposes in the war against Armenia. The massive usage of drones by the armed forces first took place in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in 2020. This conflict often referred to as the "war of drones," demonstrated how effective drones could be in modern warfare if used wisely and rationally. This conflict has shown that even a small state can achieve total air supremacy in the conflict if it uses drones properly and effectively. After the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, the number of states willing to purchase drones has increased considerably. However, it is also noteworthy that not only states are interested in drones, but also terrorist organizations and aggressive non-state actors. Many terrorist organizations have started to use drones in order to achieve their goals. One of the main challenges that faces states today is to develop effective defense mechanisms to neutralize and eliminate threats coming from drones quickly. The research question of this paper is: how did the usage of drones affected modern warfare and what are the advantages and disadvantages of the massive usage of drones? The main goal of this article is to find out positive and negative sides of the usage of drones in modern warfare. The aim of this article is also to find what threats to do the states face because of the massive usage of drones by the terrorist organizations.
International Journal of Technoethics, 2015
The United States is now relying on Reaper and Predator drone strikes as its primary strategy in the continuing War on Terrorism. This paper argues for the rational scrutiny drone warfare has yet to receive. It is argued that drone warfare is immoral as it fails both the jus in bello and the jus ad bellum conditions of Just War theory. Drone warfare cannot be accepted on utilitarian grounds either, as it is very probable that terrorists will acquire drones capable of lethal strikes and deploy them against defenseless civilians. Moreover, by examining the psychological bases for reliance on drone warfare, as well as the message the United States is sending adversaries, we need to be concerned that, rather than reduce the likelihood of terrorists strikes, the U.S. reliance on drones strikes threatens to institutionalize terrorism as the status quo for the foreseeable future.
Drones and the Future of Armed Conflict
2014
This collection aims to clarify the effects of drones on the conduct of modern warfare. Its editors (all Univ. of Notre Dame) and ten of fourteen contributors work at law and policy-oriented institutions and academic departments, mostly in the United States. Their specific objectives, according to the preface by United Nations Special Rapporteur Cristof Heyns (Univ. of Pretoria), is to enhance precaution standards, suggest a role for the UN, improve monitoring of drone killings, and shed light on state complicity in drone strikes. Though these are global issues, the authors concentrate on US policies and practice in light of ethical norms embodied in international law and just war theory (6). Following Cortright and Fairhurst's chapter 1 overview, "Assessing the Debate on Drone Warfare," the book's other chapters concern three major subjects: the morality of drone warfare; its strategic implications for counterterrorism policy; and its impacts on political accountability, freedom of information, and human rights. In chapter 2, "The Morality of 'Drone Warfare,'" Jennifer Welsh (European Univ. Inst., Florence) proffers an astute analysis of the human dimension of drone killing. She attempts to redefine "combatant" and to assess the difference between killings in war and non-war situations. She criticizes the loose equivalence between "imminence of" and "generally engaged in" terrorist activity. She concludes that drone killing is neither good nor bad in itself and may be a legitimate instrument of war in some circumstances. Martin Cook (US Naval War College), in chapter 3, "Drone Warfare and Military Ethics," addresses the morality of drone killing, through tactical, operational, and strategic "lenses," before turning to international law and grand strategy. He approves of drones as a means to an end, except in the case of "signature" strikes against all fighting age males. Operationally, he believes drone use has been appropriate in Afghanistan, but not always elsewhere. Strategically, drones often do more harm than good to users regardless of their tactical and operational efficacy. Some US attacks on al-Qaeda have conformed to international law, but not, Cook writes, the George W. Bush administration's concept of "anticipatory self-defense" (National Security Strategy of 2002). Since the United States is no longer the sole user of military drones (62), meaningful international standards for their deployment are a pressing need. In chapter 4, "International Law and Drone Attacks beyond Armed Conflict Zones," Mary Ellen O'Connell (Notre Dame School of Law) refutes eight supposed legal justifications of drone killings outside combat zones, arguing notably that appeals to some global war are counterfactual even as to Afghanistan; so a self-defense justification based on such a war fails (65-68). For example, a nation's "consent" to an outsider's intervention because it is "unable or unwilling" to deal with terrorists inside its borders is no legitimate reason for such intervention. Other justifications do not comply with the International Committee of the Red Cross definition of "continuous combat functions." Karen Greenberg (Fordham Univ.), in chapter 5, "Drone Strikes and the Law," exposes legal flaws in US drone policy. Under George W. Bush, "enemy" might denote not just a given nation but also
Rise of the Drones: Unmanned Systems and the Future of War
2010
Washington College of Law, American University, Washington DC, and a member of the Hoover Task Force on National Security and Law, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford CA. My areas of specialty include the laws of war and armed conflict, international law, and national security law. I have attached a brief biography as an appendix to this statement.
Drones, Warfare and the Deconstruction of the Enemy
Contexto Internacional
Based on the theoretical frameworks of Carl Schmitt (hostis and inimicus), Giorgio Agamben (field and homo sacer), and Grégoire Chamayou (hunter-states and kill boxes), and being seen through the theoretical lens of post-structuralism in International Relations, this article aims to analyse the use of drones, especially Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs), in the ‘War on Terror’ led by the USA. In this context, we seek to demonstrate how the use of drones has affected the logic of current warfare scenarios in three different, but related aspects. First of all (Act One), the use of drones makes the construction of political otherness of the enemy impossible, and thus identity construction by counterpoint impracticable. Then (Act Two), this paper demonstrates how there is an attempt to move the enemy to the externality of the International Community, relegating their status to banishment and marginalisation. Finally (Act Three), the authors analyse the role of kill boxes and how t...
The Use of Drones and Drone Strikes by the United States: The New American Way of War?
The use of drones and drone strikes by the United States is one of the most controversial and written about topics at present. Much of the focus, however, has been on questions surrounding the effectiveness, morality, and legality of drones. Without dismissing the importance of these inquiries, this paper focuses on a different question: Why does the use of drones and drone strikes appeal to Americans? With a large focus on the nature of public support for the policy, this paper explores this question through three interrelated discussions. First, there is an analysis of support for drones in the context of U.S. history of support and opposition of wars since WWII. This analysis explores the issues that have arisen due to the increasingly "virtual" nature of military actions undertaken by the U.S. Secondly, this issue is explored via conversations about the perception and framing of drones as a response to security threats and terrorism. Lastly, the focus turns to how these issues and developments have impacted pro-war or anti-war sentiment in the United States, involving a concentrated discussion of public opinion surrounding drones. The latter includes an analysis of polling data as well material from congressional hearings in relation to drones.