Author Topic: “Drone On”: Targeted Killing, Drone Warfare, and Jus Ad Bellum  (Read 175 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 166,526
“Drone On”: Targeted Killing, Drone Warfare, and Jus Ad Bellum
August 26, 2022 by Special Guest

by Kim Caccamo

Editor’s Note: Kim Caccamo is a cadet at the United States Military Academy at West Point. This academic work product does not reflect an official position of West Point, the U.S. Army, or the U.S. Government. This first appeared in The Havok Journal on August 25, 2020.


Introduction

In the United States, the use of drone warfare to conduct military operations has increased significantly in recent years due to advancements in drone technology and the changing landscape of war. This warfare is “part of a global pattern of an ever broader and unfettered use of air power” that began with the Obama administration “but which has been spurred on and expanded under Donald Trump’s presidency” (Borger).

However, the increased use of drone technology has been met with resistance from experts in various fields of study. For example, philosophers have debated the nature of drone warfare and what, if anything, makes it wrong without reaching a unanimous conclusion. One philosopher, Daniel Statman, argues that drones are more discriminate and reduce risk to soldiers, which possibly creates an obligation for militaries to utilize them. In his paper, “Drones and Robots: On the Changing Practice of Warfare,” Statman presents five common objections to drone warfare and rebuts them. In the process, he analyzes the moral issues surrounding drone technology. Statman concludes that there is nothing new about drones in comparison to conventional war weaponry, and therefore sees no reason why drone warfare’s morality should be heavily scrutinized (Statman 1).

I believe Statman’s analysis is incomplete. Specifically, I think that Statman does not adequately appreciate and discuss the implications of the fear drone warfare causes in comparison to conventional war weaponry. While Statman helps us address common objections to drone warfare and encourages healthy skepticism about many prevailing views of the technology, the goal of my paper is to offer reasons why we ought to be concerned with the increased use of drones (Caccamo 1-2). Specifically, I believe a parallel can be drawn between drone warfare and acts of terrorism that help ground reasonable objections to the use of drones.

https://havokjournal.com/national-security/defense/drone-on-targeted-killing-drone-warfare-and-jus-ad-bellum/
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Thomas Jefferson