The Ethicality of Military Drones

            The use of drones in war has come to media attention in the past two years. Drones had been used for the past decade for targeted killings and reconnaissance, but only under the Obama administration have their use been greatly increased. Drones have allowed for the removal of individuals deemed to be threats to national security with no risk to American lives. While there has been controversy over the civilian casualties the drone strikes cause, sending soldiers or manned aircraft to perform the same tasks would put American soldiers at risk, potentially leading to similar numbers of casualties to that of drone strikes. Drones are another tool that have been modified for use by the military, as other past technologies have before them. Using drones reduces the risk to the American military while achieving the same goals.

            As Arkin states in his article, warfare over human history has always contained atrocities, and it always will. War itself is an atrocity; people die on both sides of the conflict though inevitably one side will suffer more, either through property destruction or the number of their countryman who are killed. While Arkin speaks mainly for the future, with autonomous robots that are not of our current time, drones can be used in a similar role, with a human behind the controls from a safe location. All wars will result in the deaths of civilians and combatants alike, it is not wrong to reduce the casualties of one side. The utilization of drones in war is not unethical, the government should take every step possible to decrease the hazards that its soldiers face. Drones do make it easier to victimize those whom they are deployed against, as they have little to no way of defending themselves. But it is it more ethical to put American soldier’s lives at risk simply to give the enemy a more even field? Drones themselves are not the issue, but the liberal use of targeted killing and how they detach their operators from the battlefield can spark unnecessary deaths.

            A pilot in Nevada operating a drone is likely to be under less stress than a pilot flying over Iraq of Afghanistan. While this may leave him more capable of making rational instead of emotional decisions, it distances him from the harm that his actions inflict upon those he fires. The moral message at the end of Ender’s Game, is that there are always casualties in war, there are always people who suffer. Technology has allowed the American military to trivialize the act of killing someone on the other side of the world. While the soldier may not be under duress, or under threat, he is in fact still killing humans. Technology may cause more civilian deaths in the end due to this dehumanization of the enemy (Arkin 5). That is as of now, speculation; drones should be continued to be used in war because if the reason for the war is made irrelevant, then the safety of our soldiers always takes precedent over the safety of enemy combatants and noncombatants.