UAV?

How beneficial are unmainned aerial vehicles to the U.S. military and should they be used?

Since the start of the 21^st century, the U.S. military has been deploying unmanned aerial vehicles, most commonly known as drones, during operations. The use of drones began under Bush’s presidency after the September 11 attack, and their use continued into Obama’s presidency. However, due to a correlation between higher civilian casualties and drones, Obama severely limited their use during his presidency. With Obama’s presidency now over, there are many people in the military who are seeking to lift the limitations on the use of drones. That is because these people see the benefits in using drones and want to exploit these benefits. Drones are cheap, they keep American soldiers safe, and they can also perform many different functions. Despite all the benefits, their view conflict with those who want to limit or completely eliminate the use of drones.  The people who want to eliminate drones from the military question the ethics of their use and whether it is morally correct to be killing people without personally being there. Aside from this, there was also a growing concern over the fact that drones can be hacked and used against the U.S. Yet, despite all the flaws that an unmanned aerial vehicle may hold, they are a valuable asset to the U.S. military and their use should be continued in future operations.

One reason why drones are so important is that they have many functions that the military can take advantage of.  Some functions that drones can perform are delivery, search and rescue missions, and gathering intelligence. Although all these functions can be done by humans alone, drones have a much more efficient at performing these functions.

Drones are able to access and maneuver through regions that humans have a hard time getting through. It is because of this feature that drones can deliver packages at a much faster rate than humans. In places such as mountainous terrains and deserts, humans would have a hard time navigating through them to deliver a package. However, a drone can just fly through these areas and deliver a package without any problem. In a test by Stony Brook University’s Global Health Institute, a few drones were sent to deliver medicines and food to local communities in Madagascar.  Many of the communities were in “remote and inaccessible areas” and the people in these communities were prone to illnesses such as tuberculosis (Revkin). If they were to get sick they would have to travel to the nearest medical facility which “take a day or more by foot, across treacherous terrain” (Revkin). Medical teams that attempt to reach these communities would also have a difficult time as they have to hoist heavy equipment while traveling. Yet, the drones sent by the Stony Brook team were able to easily and successfully deliver the medicine and food by air (Revkin). Having drones deliver the supplies would of course make the life in these communities better. Although military drones are not known for delivery, it is a future possibility for the military to implement this function and use drones to deliver supplies such as weapons and food to ground troops.  As seen from the drones in Madagascar, delivery of supplies is much easier when done by drones.

The military can also use drones to gather intelligence or to assess a situation. Drones are able to circle around a terrain by air while surveying the situation on the ground.  If anything were to happen on the ground, drones would be able to sense it and send this information back to the military base allowing the operator to determine if anything suspicious is going on. When attacking an enemy troop, drones can gather “vital intelligence information about the targets”. They can then “soften the target before the actual launch of the attack” by commencing airstrikes to lessen the amount of enemies (Qaisrani). Having information about a battleground and the enemy is essential to the military in the midst of war.

Drones being able to assess ground situation is also vital during a search and rescue mission. When a soldier goes M.I.A. or missing in action, a rescue team would be sent out to look for that soldier. However, the use of a drone to find a soldier that is M.I.A. would be faster than the “traditional ground-based rescue team” (Hutson). In a report by a team from Europe, data shows that drones were able to find an isolated person much quicker than the ground rescue team as they were able to assess the ground situation from the air. Due to the benefits of using drones during search and rescue missions, drones are also now being used outside of the military for use in disaster zones. One example of this would be Hurricane Harvey, where military type drones were dispatched to look for people in need of help and to assess the damages caused by the hurricane (Hutson). When it comes to looking for missing soldiers, time is key as the soldiers might not have enough supplies, or they may be badly injured. Drones are able to speed up the search, making them crucial for the military during these types of mission.

The standard manned vehicle can also perform many of the same functions as a drone, but what makes drones superior in the military is that they are much cheaper. In the U.S. about 54 % of the federal budget is spent on the military which equates to around 600 billion dollars. This is the highest amount of money that a country puts in its military around the world. The majority of the money in the military then goes towards developing and maintaining weapons. Within the 600 billion dollars, 198.7 billion dollars is spent on operations and maintenance of weapons and another 90.4 billion dollars is spent on the creation of weapons. Of the 90.4 billion dollars spent on weapons, 8.3 billion dollars is spent on creating F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, a type of manned fighter jet (Gould). Many people in the U.S. dislike how much money the government spends on the military each year and rather have more of the budget go towards things like Medicare. The military budget can be cut if the military chooses to make cheaper weapons such drones.

One of the most expensive aircraft that the U.S. military constantly creates is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. A single fighter unit costs up to 91 million dollars to develop and it has a cost of 16,500 dollars per hour of flight. In contrast an MQ-9 reaper, a type of military drone only cost 6.48 million dollars per unit and has a cost of 3250 dollars per hour of flight (Mclean). A MQ-9 reaper is about 1/3 the price of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, yet both can perform the same functions. Although prices of drones and manned aircraft may depend on the model, the cheapest that a manned aircraft can get is 1500 dollars per hour of flight while the cheapest a drone can get is 100 dollars per hour of flight (Qaisrani). Aside from production and usage of the aircraft, money still has to go in when they are lost in battle. In 2011 when the US Air Force lost 12 Predators drones, 48 million dollars was spent. On the other hand, during the same year 5     F-16(manned aircraft) crashes costed up to 57.3 million dollars (Boyle). Drones are just as effective as manned vehicles, yet they are substantially cheaper than their counterpart. If the U.S. military work towards the development and deployment of drones, less money would be spent on the military each year.

Despite all the benefits of using drones, one of the main concern about them is the possibility of being hacked by enemies. Drones are operated through the use of a computer and like any other computer, they can be hacked. Through many techniques such as jamming and spoofing, signals to the drone can be cut off from the operator and from there, the enemies can take the drone and use it for themselves.

To operate a drone, there have to be three different communication links. The first is the signal that is sent to the drone from a GPS satellite which is meant to help the operator control the drone when it is out of sight. The signal from the GPS satellite also notify nearby friendly units about the position of the drone. There is also a communication satellite which is meant to relay information between the operator and the drone and a ground control station that can control the drone when it is in sight. Through the usage of jamming and spoofing, any of these signals can be disrupted by enemy troops (Wesson). A spoofing attack is when a false signal is sent to a GPS receiver to give it an incorrect coordinate. In this case, the GPS receiver is the drone and if the drone were given the false signal, it would steer away from its intended course. A jamming attack is when an outside source makes the GPS signal prone to interference which would in turn cause a loss of connection between the receiver and the operator. Currently there is no way to secure a signal once it is lost, meaning the U.S. military would have a hard time retrieving any drones lost to hacking. What makes this such a concern is that drones are high tech weapons and having enemy soldiers hack and use them for their own purposes is troubling.

Drones may be susceptible to hacking but there are currently ways to help avoid hacking and new technologies are being developed to completely eliminate hacking. One of the methods to avoid hacking is for the military to make up a random route for the drone to take while still reaching its destination. This is meant to help the drone avoid being seen and ambushed by enemy hacker (Moskvitch). There are also software programs that can randomize the drone’s movement making it harder for the hackers to take control of the drone. These aren’t foolproof ways to avoid hacking, but they can decrease the chance of the drones being hacked. Aside from these current method, the U.S. army along with a company called Textron “are adding new computer processing power and cyberhardening technology to the current inventory of ground control stations operating drones in combat, to better defend against enemy” hackers (Keller). Hacking is an unavoidable threat, but it should not stop the U.S. military from using them. There will always be hackers, but with the evolution of technology, the U.S. can continuously upgrade their weapons to combat them.

One of the main benefits of using drones is that they keep American soldiers safe from the dangers of a battlefield. Drones are unmanned vehicles meaning that they can be sent to the battlefield without a pilot. The pilot can then operate the drone back at the ground station away from enemy fire eliminating all the risk of fighting for the pilot. These risks include being killed or getting captured by enemy troops and taken as a prisoner of war. This would of course lessen the amount of casualties that the U.S. has to suffer.

When creating any type of vehicle/aircraft, the pilot’s safety must be taken into consideration. If a manned aircraft was shot, the pilot would need to be able to access the parachute or any other safety feature of the aircraft. Yet, even if the pilot were to survive getting hit by enemy fire, there is a chance that they might land and get captured by the enemies ground troop. However, none of this matters to a drone’s pilot, as a drone completely keeps the pilot safe. If the drone were to be shot by enemy fire, there is no pilot inside the drone that would be in danger. The pilot would instead be safely back at base, making a report that the drone was hit. Also if the pilot were to suddenly faint while operating the vehicle, another person could take over the controls for the drone while the manned aircraft would most likely fall and get destroyed.

Drones are currently used by the military during operations that are considered too risky for the soldiers. In the fight against terrorist group, the U.S. has been deploying drones to strike these groups rather than use normal manned vehicles. During Obama’s presidency, “U.S. drones have killed an estimated 3,300 al Qaeda, Taliban, and other jihadist operatives in Pakistan and Yemen” (Byman). Amongst all the killings through the use of drones, zero casualties were reported among the U.S. military (Byman).  Another reason to use drones beside keeping soldiers safe is that some countries like Pakistan dislike foreign troops on their land. Through the use of drones, the U.S. military can complete their mission without having to set foot in those countries (Qaisrani). Lowering casualties among the military is an important task for any country. Even if a war has been won, having high casualties would lower the morale of the people. By using drones, casualties would fall drastically, and soldiers would then be able to fight without risking their life.

Even though drones keep U.S. soldiers safe, the use of drone still raises the question of morality and ethics. During Obama’s presidency around 1000 civilian deaths caused by drone strikes were officially reported by the governments. The actual number may be higher, as the method of counting civilian casualties is extremely flawed and because the government is concealing information about these types of casualties (Liptak). However, no matter what the actual count of civilian casualties is, the fact that drones have caused these casualties prompted people to label drones as a killing machine. Also, questions about the morality of drone killing began to rise due to its connection to higher civilian casualties. Civilian casualties can happen during a war, but what caused drones to increase the count is drone precision.

Drones are a type of precision weapon meaning any attack they carry out will most likely hit. However, even if they are a precision weapon, hitting the right target lies in the hands of the operator and not the drone. When a manned aircraft or an army troop is sent to storm an enemy territory, the soldiers would have intel on anything that is happening on the ground. If there is a innocent civilian in an enemies’ territory, the ground troops can distinguish between the target and civilian. This is because the troops are personally at the site and can assess the situation while distinguishing between friendly and foe. A drone cannot do this as the operator is usually thousands of miles away from the target. When the operator stares at the target site through a computer screen, they are not able to distinguish between the enemies and civilians. Instead, they  carry out large scale drone strikes that would hit anyone in the area. This would lead to a higher chance of killing both the enemies and the civilian which would in turn cause a higher civilian casualties count.

To combat the question about the morality of drone usage, the U.S. army is currently making a second generation of unmanned aerial vehicles. These second generation, will have new technological elements such as stealth and will be equipped with precision guided ammunition (Mayer). With stealth, drones can avoid enemy sight while assessing the ground situation. This would help the operator determine the best course of action to take while figuring out to attack. Also, rather than using force to attack its enemies, the U.S. is planning to make more precision weapons (Walsh). When carrying out drone strikes, the U.S. military are using force and attacking anything within the vicinity causing collateral damage and civilian casualties.  This was due to the low precision in drone use but by using precision guided weapons, drones will most likely hit the right target without causing collateral damage. With the development of new technology, drone strikes will become more precise which will lower civilian casualties count.

Along with the question on morality, many people started to question the ethics of using drones. Is it ethical to be killing someone through a computer screen? Although drones keep American soldiers safe, many have argued that they are removing the act of killing from the operator. The operator is sitting thousands of miles away from their target but the one doing the actual killing is the drone itself. The reason people are worried about drone killing is that drones seem to have made killing way to simple. If the operators aren’t there in person, are they responsible for killing, have we as humans trivialized the act of killing, if we allow machines to do the killing, will we as humans feel any remorse (Wilson). These are some of the ethical questions that people have raised about drones and it makes people wonder if military drones are the way to go.

During wartime, the fact that people will be killed is inevitable. Soldiers from different factions would have to fight each other while risking their life on the battlefield. Although the soldiers are brutally killing each other, not many people would call these battles unethical. The reason for this is because it is a war. Everyone knows that when a soldier steps on to the battlefield to fight, they would have to kill others or be killed. You can’t really win a war without killing which is why even though killing is morally wrong, it is not unethical to kill during wartime. Yet when it comes to drones killing other enemy soldiers, people start raising the questions on ethics. That is because, unlike traditional warfare where humans fight other humans, drone warfare has humans fighting machines. In traditional warfare, every soldier from each faction must risk their life to fight for what they believe in and everyone has an equal chance of dying. However, in drone warfare, those with drones can fight while being comfortably back at their own base while their enemies are risking their lives fighting machines rather than other humans. The operators of the drones would be shooting their enemies down through a computer screen making it almost like a video game. Drones has made killing really simple as the operators don’t need to risk their own lives to kill anymore, but it does raise the question on if their usage is ethical during wartime.

When answering the questions on the ethics of using drones for warfare, there is not really a clear answer as it really depends on perspective. For those supporting drones, drone usage is ethical as they are keeping the lives of the soldiers safe. Even if drones do make killing simpler, people are going to be killed on the battlefield with or without drones. Lastly, soldiers typically don’t feel remorse for killing their enemies as they see them as targets rather than humans, meaning drones will not make them any less remorseful (James).  Others can say drone usage is unethical as machines are doing the actual killing rather than the operator. Drones make war unfair as any damaged drones can be repaired and reused while the human lives that they take cannot. Drones can trivialize the act of killing as the operators would be staring through a computer screen, detached from the battlefield while shooting down enemy soldiers. There are many answers to the questions on the ethics of drone usage which is why it cannot be stated that drones are ethical or unethical.

In the end, the U.S. military should use drones during wartime as they are highly beneficial. By focusing on the development and usage of drones, many soldiers can be kept safe from the dangers of the battlefield. Less money would be spent on the military each year and functions such as delivery can be easily carried out with them. While it is true that there is problems with drones and that some people are opposed to using them, drones are a valuable asset to the military. In an age of technology, advanced weaponry such as drones are a necessity for the military in order to combat enemy nation and to protect one’s own country.

 

Work Cited

Ahmad, Mahmood. “The United States Use of Drones in Pakistan: A Politico-Strategic    Analysis.” Ebsco, Routledge Taylor and Francis group, 2014.

Byman, Daniel. “Why Drones Work.” Ebsco. Foreign Affairs, July-Aug.     2013.

Cohen, Kelly. “Drones as Lifesavers.” Jstor, National Science Teachers Association, Mar. 2014.

Goldstein, Cora Sol. “Drones, Honor, and War.” Ebsco. Military Review, Nov.-Dec. 2015.

Hutson, Matthew. “Hurricanes show why drones are the future of disaster relief.” NBC News, NBCUniversal News Group, 9 Sept. 2017

Keller, John. “Raytheon to upgrade surveillance sensor in Global Hawk Block 30 UAV.” Ebsco,             Military & Aerospace Electronics, Sept. 2017

Liptak, Kevin. “WH reveals number of civilian deaths from drone strikes.” CNN, Cable News      Network, 1 July 2016.

Mayer, Michael. “The new killer drones: understanding the strategic implications of next- Generation unmanned combat aerial vehicles.” Ebsco, International affairs, July 2015.

McLean, Wayne. “Drones Are Cheap, Soldiers Are Not: A Cost-benefit Analysis of War.” The Conversation. The Conversation, 25 Dec. 2016.

News, Auvsi. “Are UAS More Cost Effective than Manned Flights?” Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, Auvsi News, 15 Mar. 2017.

Qaisrani, Irfan Hasnain, et al. “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: A Revolution in the Making.”             Ebsco, Northrop Grumman Corp., July 2016.Ranjan, Amit. “Al Articles Drone Attacks in Afghanistan and the Af-Pak Region: Is There Any       Other Option?” Taylor and Francis Online,    Asian Affairs, 14 Oct. 2014

Revkin, Andrew. “In Madagascar Test, Drone Delivers Medicine by Air.” The New York Times,             The New York Times, 26 Nov. 2016.

Skye, Gould and Bender, Jeremy. “Here’s how the US military spends its billions.” Business         Insider, Business Insider, 29 Aug. 2015,

Wesson, Kyle. “Hacking Drones.” Ebsco. Scientific American, Nov. 2013.