The U.S. military has been increasingly depending on the use of drones in its fight against War on Terror. Initially, drones were for the first time used during the 1990’s for the purpose of surveillance as well as reconnaissance. Currently, under President Obama’s government, they have turned out to be the exceptional aerial combat asset in opposition to foreign terrorists. The drones are controlled remotely by means of satellite (Craciun 56). However, there has been an increase in ethical debates for and against the use of drones in the fight against War on Terror.
Warfare that is carried out through drones portrays the viciousness of human slaughter. However, warfare as well as killing ought not to be the immediate alternative for resolving social conflict. The option to attack a target by means of a drone should at all times be the last resort. The morally upright approach of solving conflicts should not result in blood or death of individuals (Kleinberg 112). There is a difficulty in identifying civilians from combatants when using drones in spearheading a war. At many times, drone attacks result in civilian casualties.
The ethical concerns relate to the due process as well as accountability. For instance, who makes the decisions relating to who the target will be as well as whether to carry out a strike? What are the procedures followed as well as the oversight for the calls? The responses concerning these questions are blurred. The ethical use of drone in the battlefield, therefore, melts down to their efficiency. The aspect of efficiency consists of precision targeting, narrow collateral damage, in addition to preventing different army troops from going into a full combat mode.
The society is faced with a moral dilemma in relation to the use of drones in carrying out military attacks. The morality of drone warfare poses a lot of dilemmas in the current society. This is because an inappropriate use of a drone may pose a big risk to the lives of human beings. Different questions have come up from the use of drones. For instance, how can one be certain that he or she has identified a suitable target? What is the appropriate way of using such advanced warfare weapons?
Another ethical consideration in the use of drone in warfare should apply the principle of humanity that states one ought to avoid suffering as well as the unnecessary damage of property.
The concern is not that the drone technology has brought about a new type of weapon that our conventional moral concepts may not cope with, but rather, the concern is that the clear ease of deploying drones has made some ignore as well as evade the conventional standards that validate force since they are “efficient” in this irregular war in opposition to non-state participants.
The moral justification language is comprehensively saturated in the concept of use of drones in wars. The very subject of ethics means that it is not possible to have an extra-ethical situation. The task of ethics is to remind people that they should not call something legitimate by virtue of the power they have (Lees 54).In conclusion, even though the utilization of killer robots in carrying out the war business might save the lives of the U.S., waging drone warfare ends up in the erosion of our moral as well as ethical inhibitions against killing. However, in order to efficiently use drones in warfare, army personnel must not deliberately attack without securing moral certitude in relation to the combatant status when aiming at a potential target. To command a strike on the basis of proof that leaves reasonable doubt regarding whether a target is non-combatant would not be moral.