Article Review, Cant we all get along?

 

  The article I choose to review was "The Ethical Aspects of Military Maritime and Aerial Autonomous Systems." The article is broken into 3 categories that the writer sees as issues, the first quarter of the article characterizes what an unmanned and autonomous system is and its purpose. He focuses mainly on navel use. Initially beginning with the main question of whether it can be considered morally right to use UAVs in war, and if so, in what manner and under which circumstances. (Johansson, 2018). This question is asked every time a new technology comes along especially with a device that gives such a great advantage over one’s enemy.  The crossbow itself was once banned by the Roman church and the use of it could mean ex-communication. (The Return of the Crossbow and its Implications for Europe, 2013) do to the fact that it would penetrate a nobleman's armor and anyone could use it.  Simplified as this may be, an arrow itself is an unmanned sword flying through the air. Crossbows are just the start of technology giving the creator an advantage and still even more dangerous than modern-day UAVs are machinegun, mines, chemical weapons, and the atomic bomb all at one point and still in some cases seen as immoral.

  To broaden the question more the author breaks it down into legal issues and ethical issues, with some subcategories under each of these two issues. When it comes to legal issues the biggest question is whether the unmanned vehicle is considered to have the same rights as a ship meaning is it considered a sovereign extension of the state. The author references Henderson (2006) the argument that a strong case can be made under domestic law that UMAS are in fact vessels and, therefore, subject to all applicable rules for operation and navigation, which I agree with. Ethical issues went into more subcategories with the first being law of armed conflict which is defined and understood but he states as vague. The second is what the author calls a lower threshold to start a war.  Saying if it doesn’t risk lives then what is stopping the war? The horrors and brutality of the war may be missed by the end controlling the unmanned systems because they are out of harm’s way (Johansson, 2018). The distance argument although tied to the drone systems is no different than a battleship bombing the coast of a pacific island in the 40s or artillery hitting the hills of Vietnam. The USAF has had air superiority for over a quarter of the century are the bomber pilots flying over there targets dropping the bombs numb to the horrors and brutality? I don’t believe so and if you’ve worked in facilities that coordinate and run the operations of UAVs in combat, you’d see resiliency training is a big buzz word because it still affects normal human beings.  The next subcategory is unfairness argument not only about having an advantage of better technology but also saying there’s no honor or the country using them are cowards. All these disagreements with the ethical use of UAVs, tying ethics to war, is a slippery slope if we could come up with rules on how to fight why not come up with a reason not to fight and if every war is ethical such as a war against terrorism then why is it typically a small number of countries, let's say five, that do the fighting. Another question asked is if a UAV operator in Nevada is a legal target even being far from the war (Johansson, 2018)? I don’t even get why this is a question. If the enemy could strike within the borders they would. There are no laws against it. The author suggests defining borders of the battleground, which in reality is just a false sense of security as the law of armed conflict is to a combatant that enforces it but fights an enemy who could care less and ignores it.

  The Journal finishes up with a bid to redefine the Laws of Armed Conflict. The author believes that the laws are vague when comes to using UAVs and other unmanned systems. They are vague just like most laws because times change allowing them to change and be interpreted by the future as it fits but setting a foundation to go off of. The author's interpretation of the kill chain acts as though it is just the unmanned system and its pilot making the decisions when it is a large number of people collaborating and helping with making the final decision. Do the laws need to be updated? I would say yes but the main thing I would add is that any weapon that is used against a target that may involve human life should be triggered by a human. The system can identify targets, send the target to be verified by individuals then riffled by a human. The image below depicts what most people believe UAVs are and how they operate.

Henderson, A. (2006). “Murky Waters: The Legal Status of Unmanned Undersea Vehicles.”    Naval Law Review 53: 55–72. Retrieved from http://sevenhorizons.org/docs/        HendersonMurkyWaters.pdf

Johansson, L. (2018). Ethical Aspects of Military Maritime and Aerial Autonomous Systems,   Journal of Military Ethics, 17:2-3, 140-155, DOI: 10.1080/15027570.2018.1552512

Press, E. (2018, June 13). The Wounds of the Drone Warrior. The New York Times   Magazine. Retrieved from  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/magazine/veterans-ptsd-     drone-warrior-wounds.html

The Return of the Crossbow and its Implications for Europe. (2013). Retrieved from     https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-return-of-the-crossbow-and-its-spread-across-   europe.html.