The authors claim that drone technology has eased the manner in which nations can wage war, where the use of technology as opposed to manned aircraft posits ability for fewer casualties to be incurred during military incursions. The United States has been increasing its drone program’s capacity since its development, where there are more frequent uses of drones to solve complex military conflicts in recent years. Nonetheless, the authors are worried that the increased use of drones to solve conflicts has led to many civilian casualties, prompting the human rights watch to question the use of drones in solving problems (Cortright, Fairhurst, & Wall, 2015). Therefore, while there is a consensus that the use of drones leads to a better determination of combatants and civilians, due to their ability to survey a region prior to conducting any activities, they are also governed by loose policies, leading to civilian casualties being watered down (Cortright et al., 2015).
There is an issue with the use of drone systems where political leaders are likely to employ the use of drones in the future to deal with dissenting parties, as stated in the article. According to the authors, the troubling thing with this revelation is that technological advancements will enable more nations to adopt the use of drones for military use (Cortright et al., 2015). However, as they are governed by very loose policies, drones have the capacity of attracting more damage than good where groups such as ISIS claim to have drones. As such, the article claims that there is a necessity for stringent rules and laws to be developed that explain the manner in which drone use is acceptable on a global scale. This will enable governments to monitor the use of such technology for military use, where ethical considerations of warfare will be assessed prior to the use of drones, alleviating the potential for civilian casualties while holding parties accountable for their actions involving military drone programs (Cortright et al., 2015).
Drones have been used in the recent past to aid in military incursions by governments. However, while the United States and other nations claim that they are successful in preventing loss of lives as in the case of manned aircraft, they forget to mention that unregulated drone use in these operations has led to the death of hundreds of individuals. This number could be higher as the regulations governing civilian casualties for drone use are sketchy at best. The use of technology with no apparent regulation in this manner, while aimed at providing safety, illustrates a potential for international conflict. It is highly plausible that the United States gains enemies when it conducts military incursions when using drones as in the case of killing people at a wedding. This is because the survivors have lost relatives, where according to them, the Western nation is the enemy as it seems to conduct unprovoked killings on foreign soil. Therefore, while the nation may achieve a feat by killing some individuals associated with combatant activities aimed against the US, there is a possibility that it breeds hostility among the survivors, where some are likely to become motivated to act against the US as they perceive the nation as the aggressor. In this scenario, would someone blame a person for thinking that he or she is correct in assuming that the US attacked them without provocation and is thus not the purveyor of justice as it claims to be?
Moreover, regardless of international regulation that is enforced on the drone program, nations are bound to maintain their secrets. Organizations such as the CIA are less likely to present their activities to the United Nations, where other nations are also prone to keep their drone programs out of the limelight, making it difficult to regulate the sector. If a nation determines that it requires a secretive drone program in a region, what are the chances that it will advertise the existence of such a drone to the international community?
- Cortright, D., Fairhurst, R., & Wall, K. (2015). Drones and the future of armed conflict: Ethical, legal, and strategic implications. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.