Introduction
The question of whether or not UAS or drones in the true sense of
the word are acceptable to use on warfare is a settled issue. UAS and drones have been in military use
since the end of World War I with the “Kettering Bug” and have been continuously
used and adapted for different missions since those early days. Weaponized UAS are nothing new either, there
were even nuclear armed UAS back in the 1950’s and 1960’s. The U.S. Navy used the QH-50 DASH (Drone
Anti-Submarine Helicopter) to hunt Soviet submarines with nuclear depth charges
and homing torpedoes. (Gyrodyne Helicopter Historical
Foundation, 2013) These systems have
been used in various reconnaissance roles from Vietnam through the recent wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan. The question is
not whether it is ethical to have UAS for military purposes but what are the
ethical boundaries and constraints for using them.
Military UAS Morality
This question is now becoming more relevant not because of the
proliferation of military UAVs but because of the rapid advance of technology,
specifically technology allowing greater levels of autonomy for the UAS. The big question is how much autonomy are we
going to allow UAS to have and dare we give them the ability to shoot targets
without direct human involvement. This
is where the true question lies. While
autonomy seems like a rather simple and easily understood term while regarding
UAS it is a complex and confusing term.
Many UAVs today have high levels of autonomy when it comes to flying,
but have to have direct human control for any weapons engagement. Is this type of autonomy bad? Some UAS currently under development can make
their own flight plans, evade enemy air defenses, evade enemy aircraft, and
locate their assigned target without direct human input. Is this level of autonomy too much? Is the breaking point where the UAS decides
to kill a target, even a human being, without any input from a human operator? “Autonomy has also been defined as the
ability to pull the trigger, without a human initiation or confirmation.” (Johansson, 2011, p. 280) Allowing UAS the ability to make the “kill”
decision without human input is where the line needs to be drawn. Human logic, reasoning, empathy, decision
making ability is needed for this type of decision. Even if we look at the future and the possibility
of artificial intelligence (AI) that may be said to possess these capabilities
it is still not an acceptable idea. AIs would
not be human. Their core beliefs,
morality, and ethics will most likely be different than ours. They would not be killing one of their
species, therefore they would not assign the same decision criteria making them
unsuitable for this type of decision making.
Machines of any kind should never be allowed to target and kill without
direct input and authorization from a human being.
Conclusion
The use of unmanned systems of any type, air, sea, or land in and
of itself is not morally wrong and has been a common practice in the military
for almost a century now. The question
comes in how they will be used and what level of autonomy will they be given. UAS are extremely useful tools of war and in
most cases there is nothing morally wrong in their use, even in killing targets
as long as a human is “in-the-loop” and making those kill decisions. It becomes morally wrong when there is no
human in the kill decision. No unmanned
system should ever be allowed to fire at targets without direct human involvement.
References
No comments:
Post a Comment