9.6 - Research: Human Factors, Ethics and Morality
Greg D. Laxton
ASCI 638
– Human Factors in Unmanned Aeronautical Systems
Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University-Worldwide
12 March
2017
My grandfather was a B-24 pilot stationed in Italy during WWII. His bombing
missions were briefed the morning before the flight, and flown with sometimes
hundreds of aircraft and thousands of bombs, at huge costs to the allied
aircrew. Not specifically targeted, individuals on the ground near the raid
were often killed. This was total war and the enemies were state actors. To
defeat enemy states, you waged war against their means to fight, including infrastructure,
petroleum resources, railways, etc. You wanted the enemy population to “give
up” and stop fighting.
The losses for allied aircrew were tremendous. My grandfather flew one of
the18,000 B-24s built during this war. Each were manned by 10 Americans. The
United States alone lost 40,000 airmen “killed in combat theatres and another
18,000 wounded” during the war (WWII Foundation, 2009). The American people suffered,
on average, the death of 6,600 soldiers a month during the war, over 220 per
day (WWII Foundation, 2009)! The point of these statistics is to highlight the
tremendous loss of life for airmen and the huge destruction of aircraft during
this time in American history. If the United States would have had the means to
attack the enemy with less risk to our soldiers, they would have cheered the
development and used it to the fullest. I’m sure it would bewilder my
grandfather, were he still alive, and I told him we were studying “fatigue” and
“shift work disorder” in combat crews who go home each night after flying missions.
One of the reasons current UAS mrthods causes the American citizen concerns,
is the very idea that we can wage war without significant loss of life to our
pilots flying in enemy territory. The idea my grandfather would have celebrated,
now causes second thoughts. Part of the concern is the nature of the enemy.
During WWII, the “combatants wore uniforms” and represented nation states
that were “party to international law” (Kreps & Kaag, 2012). This made
identifying enemies much easier. The war against terror and terrorist makes it
harder to find the players, then once they are identified, destroy them,
especially if they hide behind civilian non-combatants. The UAS helps us watch
for enemies, then track them due to the extended loiter time compared to manned
aircraft. It is just a tool however, much like the Norden bombsite familiar to
aviators in my grandfather’s generation. Any tool that helps our nation’s
soldiers more effectively kill the enemy and simultaneously reduce the risk to
our airmen, would seem to be a positive moral development. The queasiness for
critics is more likely the unease with the non-state nature of the enemy and
their willingness to hide in civilian populations.
UAS seem to be the perfect tool for this enemy. They allow military
decision makers to loiter over a target for hours, observe the enemy’s
movements, wait for the right moment, then launch a devastating and
“proportional” strike. No longer should we need 10 airmen in fleet of hundreds
to attack a target. This is a fundamental shift in how wars are fought and the
country is adjusting to the new reality. Does it make war more likely if
unmanned aircraft conduct the fight on our behalf? Does the ability to strike
an individual with a “precision” weapon make the decision to do it easier?
Would we make the same attack if our soldiers were in harm’s way? UAS are here
to stay however, so we have incentive to get the law, ethics and morality of
our actions right.
References
Kreps, S., & Kaag, J. (2012, April). The
Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Contemporary Conflict: A Legal and Ethical
Analysis. Retrieved from
search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/992898373
WWII Foundation. (2009). WWII Aircraft Facts | World War
II Foundation. Retrieved from
http://www.wwiifoundation.org/students/wwii-aircraft-facts/
