Armed Conflict Cybersecurity & Tech Foreign Relations & International Law Lawfare News

Scott Shane on the Moral Case for Drones

Benjamin Wittes
Saturday, July 14, 2012, 8:21 PM
An important news analysis piece from Scott Shane of the New York Times. I'm glad Shane took the time to lay this out. Though the point seems very obvious to me, it is decidedly non-obvious to many people I talk to. It opens:
FOR streamlined, unmanned aircraft, drones carry a lot of baggage these days, along with their Hellfire missiles. Some people find the very notion of killer robots deeply disturbing.

Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
Brookings

An important news analysis piece from Scott Shane of the New York Times. I'm glad Shane took the time to lay this out. Though the point seems very obvious to me, it is decidedly non-obvious to many people I talk to. It opens:
FOR streamlined, unmanned aircraft, drones carry a lot of baggage these days, along with their Hellfire missiles. Some people find the very notion of killer robots deeply disturbing. Their lethal operations inside sovereign countries that are not at war with the United States raise contentious legal questions. They have become a radicalizing force in some Muslim countries. And proliferation will inevitably put them in the hands of odious regimes. But most critics of the Obama administration’s aggressive use of drones for targeted killing have focused on evidence that they are unintentionally killing innocent civilians. From the desolate tribal regions of Pakistan have come heartbreaking tales of families wiped out by mistake and of children as collateral damage in the campaign against Al Qaeda. And there are serious questions about whether American officials have understated civilian deaths. So it may be a surprise to find that some moral philosophers, political scientists and weapons specialists believe armed, unmanned aircraft offer marked moral advantages over almost any other tool of warfare. “I had ethical doubts and concerns when I started looking into this,” said Bradley J. Strawser, a former Air Force officer and an assistant professor of philosophy at the Naval Postgraduate School. But after a concentrated study of remotely piloted vehicles, he said, he concluded that using them to go after terrorists not only was ethically permissible but also might be ethically obligatory, because of their advantages in identifying targets and striking with precision.

Benjamin Wittes is editor in chief of Lawfare and a Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of several books.

Subscribe to Lawfare