War cannot be humanized by drone usage
Drones, as used by the United States in military operations, belong to a class of machines referred to as unmanned aerial vehicles.
The term “drone” refers to an remotely controlled aircraft.
Julia Vann | Daily Trojan
Drone pilots are often thousands of miles away, controlling their aircrafts in a manner akin to playing a video game.
But such separation also contributes to a very inhuman character to warfare. The moral and psychological implications of these developments challenge us to question just how “personal” warfare should be.
The use of drone warfare exemplifies the United States’ position as a continuing leader in technological innovation.
In addition to the advantages their smaller size gives them, drones keep the lives of many U.S. military personnel further from the dangers of face-to-face combat with the use of unmanned technology.
Ironically, however any effort to make war more humane will only have the opposite effect.
Drone warfare is a step towards making warfare at least slightly more humane. In 21st century warfare, fewer lives have been lost than in previous wars and eras.
By reducing the amount of U.S. military personnel on the battlefield, the implementation of drone warfare even further decreases the potential for lost lives on this side.
But cleaner bullets, more accurate explosives and more mechanized warfare do not necessarily constitute more “humane” warfare.
Standards of how “humane” warfare ought to be have long been a topic for international discussion.
Treaties such as the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Protocol have attempted to address some of the most horrendous forms of warfare seen in past wars.
Biological and chemical weapons are prohibited by the Geneva Protocol.
These agreements and discussions regarding the humanity of warfare suggest that although war is horrifying, it should only be horrifying to a certain extent.
This sentiment has been reflected in the United States in regard to post-traumatic stress disorder, in which much research, efforts and funds have been invested.
Drones obviously reduce the number of men in the field and will, in turn, reduce the amount of people who are effected by PTSD.
Improvements in making warfare more “humane” should not serve as justifications for conducting war more frequently or unnecessarily.
Though reducing loss of life and making warfare as least traumatic as possible is excellent, it must not serve as an impetus to belittle the significance of the horrifying aspects of war and loss of life in general.
Conducting combat through an LCD screen does not, in any way, make war more acceptable.
If the fighting itself is necessary and drone warfare presents itself as an advantageous tool, it ought to be implemented.
But drone warfare, detaching the United States from more “personal” encounters, should not encourage increased combat engagements.
Alan Wong is a sophomore majoring in East Asian languages and cultures. His column “Re-Defining USC” runs Tuesdays.
Mr. Alan Wong writes a good and generally factual letter on use of unmanned aerial vehicles, (UAVs) (he calls them “drones”) but makes a common mistake. He suggests that the existence of an effective weapon system like the UAV might cause the US President to commit our forces to unnecessary combat actions. That is not the case. The President, for a variety of tactical, strategic or political reasons, might commit our forces to combat. Sometimes these reasons have appeared hare-brained or even vicious to some.
In no case; however, has a President committed US forces merely because a weapons system like the UAV was efficient and available. He may dictate to the military that it limit itself to a specific weapon system, e.g., aircraft to support Libyan rebels, but he has not initiated conflicts simply because he had a certain weapons system.
And where “humaneness” of weapons is concerned, US military doctrine and practice have always been to avoid destroying civilian life and property unnecessarily, although this is subject to military requirements. The “humaneness” of UAV’s lies in the fact that they are very precise, guided systems and create a minimum of collateral damage. More important, they avoid subjecting US service personnel to becoming wounded and killed during strikes against the enemy. It is the military mission, then humaneness to Americans, that counts most in warlike actions, where evaluating the effects of weapons on the enemy