Human Factors, Ethics and Morality

        The debate of the morality and ethics concerning the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in remote warfare is a heated one.  While the majority of the public perceives UAVs to be automatic killing machines, it is not the case.  The media portrays military UAVs in a negative light and tries to disassociate the UAV with the operator.  However, there is always an operator behind the controls of a UAV.  UAVs provide many benefits when utilized for military applications, such as: intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; munitions delivery; and supply transportation to name a few.  The two main benefits are the ability to remove the pilot from the aircraft and to be able to control the aircraft from a distant location.

        The conversation about war is always going to have pros and cons.  Killing any one is wrong, no one will argue that; but if military action is morally justified, then accomplishing that task with the least amount of collateral damage possible is number one priority.  UAVs have the capability to collect accurate data, ensuring the Intel is correct about possible suspects.  It also allows the mission commanders a less stressful environment to make a conscious decision on if they should fire or not.  UAVs do not autonomously fire munitions at targets.  There are trained military personnel that make the decision and carry out the task, just like the troops do on the ground.  The effects of taking someone's life will weigh differently depending upon the individual, but it is safe to say that carrying out the order to kill a target from a UAV does not weigh any less on someone than if they were to kill a target from their rifle.

        When compared to manned aircraft, accomplishing the same objective can be carried out in a number of ways.  The main argument against the use of UAVs is that the pilot isn't there in person and has a hard time realizing the collateral damage of their actions.  However, it is evident that UAV ordinance delivery can be more accurate, thereby reducing collateral damage.  Furthermore, many manned military aircraft can use ordinance that can be deployed tens or even hundreds of miles away.  So how can one argue that manned aircraft pilots have a better understanding of their mission than a UAV operator?

        In the case of continuing the use of UAS in warfare, while the benefits of using UAVs greatly outweigh the cons, the moral and ethical concerns should be focused more on why we're at war in the first place.   Taking personnel and moving them to remote locations while still being able to accomplish their task is always going to be a step in the right direction.  As technology progresses, the quality of information will progress as well.  Having more accurate information and better suited ammunition will result in fewer civilian casualties and less collateral damage.