Drones

Here is a paper I wrote about Drones that I feel sufficiently sums up my sentiments:

War, guerre, guerra, война, 戦争, πόλεμος: a word that everyone on this planet has heard. It is a word that has as many meanings as there are people. Every individual who has experienced war understands it differently. People who witness the destructiveness of war have to change: war changes people, and the way war is fought changes with time. The idea of waging war stretches back in time to the earliest days of civilization. As soon as man fashioned tools for ease of living - he fashioned tools to hasten death. These tools metamorphosed as time passed. But the fundamental idea behind war has stayed the same. The inherently selfish, cruel, and territorial man has demonstrated his inability to coexist peacefully with others of his kind. And man has created an arsenal of specialized tools to stake his claim on this planet. During the course of this paper I will examine the history of the Predator Program; the inducement of the drone programs: why did we choose drones as opposed to soldiers: What is the human cost of using unmanned machines to conduct war; and finally, I will attempt to answer what the future holds for unmanned assault vehicle programs.
Every decade has brought forth a new tool of war. This past decade has unevened the field on which countries once stood relatively equal. Many countries have the same technology to create weapons of mass destruction, but they choose not to develop these weapons for fear that they might use them. The United States is unusual in that it has actually used weapons of mass destruction. That is why the United States Military has sprung into action with new weapons programs that will affirm its title as King of the World.
Beginning in 2001 when the September 11th attacks occurred, the government looked for a solution to quell the fear growing amongst the American people. They needed a viable option for hunting down the perpetrators of the attacks – one that would not only lessen the dramatic effects of sending in foot soldiers – but also to strengthen the quality of intelligence gathered.
Every administration has one major concern when it sends troops to other countries to fight wars: American casualties. From the Vietnam War to the First Gulf War to the present wars, the biggest concern for the administration is to minimize casualties or prevent the press from comprehensively covering the war casualties as the previous Bush administration did.
Hiding casualties has never worked and never will work. So for the past few decades the Pentagon—or really DARPA, its research and development unit—has been working tirelessly to develop unmanned weapons which would not require us to put American soldiers in harm’s way. The new arena of war is one in which we use robotics to wage what is often called asymmetric war: war not between armies of two nations but between transnational radical groups that have to be targeted while avoiding casualties in the countries within which they operate. For many critics, this development is troubling because it signals a paradigm shift in the waging of war. In this new logic of robotics war, we’ve two primary concerns: minimizing our casualties and achieving our goal of targeting insurgents most anywhere in the world. The problem in this logic is that it creates the conditions for maximizing civilian casualties on the ‘other’ side and it potentially turns the globe into a possible arena of war. Issues of state sovereignty, international treaties that require the accouchement of waging war, the treatment of prisoners: all of these become irrelevant when we operate unmanned remote-controlled planes that can see into peoples’ homes and eliminate elements considered enemy-combatants.
The CIA worked closely with the United States Military to identify a qualified contractor to produce a fleet of surveillance drones to serve as the eyes and ears of the CIA. The surveillance program was incredibly successful. The CIA noticed that the Taliban could not figure out who was spying on them. They were observed killing their own people in an effort to expose any traitors. All the while it was the reconnaissance drones flying overhead, relaying vital information to the CIA for ground and air attacks. (Shatchman, 2009)
The CIA and the United States Military did not want to discontinue using such a successful program. They needed to work closely with weapons contractors to create a new weapon that would not only observe and report – it would hunt and kill.
The newest and potentially, most destructive program actualized in the last decade is the Predator Program. It is part science-fiction, part nightmare - but one-hundred percent deadly. The Predator Program is the crown jewel of the United States Military. It is shrouded in secrecy, though its power is well known in Afghanistan where people have witnessed its potency.
The designation unmanned aerial assault vehicle conjures up images of video games, or the Terminator movie series. Whichever way you imagine it, it is much worse in person. There is nothing more frightening than a machine buzzing above a city, deciding which target to take. In the annals of human history there has never been a war fought without men. The Predator Program stems from that very idea: a war without men. The United States military has been attempting unmanned warfare for the past three decades. However, not until the recent wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, have they truly blossomed. But what is the Predator Program?
The Predator Program is an extremely technical Military weapons program that consists of vehicles designed with various operational capabilities. The Predator B – also known as the MQ-9 Reaper was conceived by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems for use by the United States Air Force. The MQ-9 is the first "hunter-killer UAV designed for long-endurance, high-altitude flight.” (Magazine, 2009)The MQ-9 is the flagship unmanned vehicle of the United States Air Force. However, there are multiple vehicles in use today.
According to General Atomics Aeronautical, the UAV (unmanned Assault Vehicle) Predator-1 is capable of operating at an altitude of twenty-five thousand feet for up to forty hours. It also boasts a wingspan of 48.7 feet, and a length of 27 feet. This giant machine can also carry up to 450 pounds of payload. This was the first in the line of Predators. The Predator B, (which later became the MQ-1), is capable of coasting at fifty-thousand feet; carry eight-hundred pounds of internal payload, three-thousand pounds of external payload (missiles); reach speeds of up to two-hundred and twenty knots; a wingspan of sixty-six feet; and an operating life of thirty-three hours.
The MQ-9 reaper also developed by General Atomics Aeronautical for the Military; has a service ceiling of over fifty-thousand feet; payload of thirty-eight hundred pounds; a maximum speed of two-hundred eighty knots; and plenty of room for missiles. The difference between these UAV's and others used in battle is the Predators are designed as hunter-killers. They can be programmed to locate and eliminate targets from incredibly high altitudes to avoid detection, and destruction.
The Predators – also known as drones – are operated from a control room by two sensor operators and one pilot. They are completely removed from the actual fighting and run zero risk of being injured. On the other hand, Air Force fighter pilots always run the risk of being hit by surface to air missiles. The cost of a jet, plus the training over the course of a pilots’ life, is worth too much to risk. (Hanley, 2007)
The cost of one UAV can vary depending on the payload capabilities. The MQ-1 costs around $7.4 million, and the chance that a UAV will be destroyed in combat is relatively low.
The Predator Program was created in part to help protect the interests of the Military at a reasonable financial cost. With the purchase of just one UAV - the Military stands to save millions of dollars per day in operating costs. Additionally, the Air Force could save $1.5 billion dollars by cutting Fighter Pilot Programs. "It takes more than a year and $2.6 million to train a fighter pilot. It takes 20 weeks and $135,000 to train a UAV pilot, who doesn’t need to be a fighter pilot, hence the savings." (jetwhine.com, 2009)
Considering the costs associated with waging a war is always at the forefront of the minds of the members of congress and the American people. Americans and Congress don’t want to see dead soldiers on the news. Congress and the American people overwhelmingly support the drone programs because they value an American life more than the lives of innocent civilians in the countries where we are fighting.
For all the technical trappings of these unmanned machines – they lack the accuracy that is needed to ensure only the intended target is eliminated. The question of accuracy for a machine designed to kill, has been raised since the inception of the program. Congress knows that when you use a weapon, you are taking responsibility for the collateral damage as well.
Collateral damage is a term used to describe the civilian casualties associated with inaccurate air strikes. There is also the question of responsibility that has been raised by concerned Americans and leaders of the countries whose homeland is becoming a proving ground for American operated drones.
In Pakistan there have been drone strikes that have not only caused the deaths of civilians, but have increased the presence of Taliban in tribal areas. According to Reuters, there have been over 44 drone attacks in Pakistan in 2009. Of those 44, only 5 were successful. In total, 704 people were killed in the Northern Territories in Pakistan; 90 percent of those killed were civilians including women and children. The sovereignty of Pakistan has been shaken, and the alliance with the American Military and CIA is causing an increase in sectarian violence in the regions hit by drones. (Anthony, 2009)
The use of drones in the war on terror is justified for some as a necessary tool for the protection of Americans fighting on the ground. However, General George Patreus said that the “drones are not helping us on the ground.” As the General in Command of ground operations in the region, he understands that killing civilians only creates a bigger rift between the people and the government. How do you expect a country to cooperate with you in finding terrorists if you are killing more innocent people than the terrorists are? The international community is also questioning the legality of these strikes. The United States has countered that argument by stating the “force is necessary and legal on the grounds of Self Defense as proscribed by International Law and the Geneva Conventions Code of Military Conduct.” (Gates, 2009)
An unmanned combat assault vehicle is not subject to the same laws as a soldier. These vehicles are sometimes pre-programed for autonomous operation and are not controlled by a human operator. Who then is to answer for any human rights violations? Can a machine be held responsible for a war crime? These machines were designed to kill insurgents or terrorists – but they are incredibly inaccurate. If you have a Marine firing into a crowd to kill one man – he will be held personally responsible for killing the civilians. If a drone flies overhead with the intention of killing one terrorist; kills that terrorist, but also destroys a house full of innocent people – who answers for that?
The Brookings institution, a Think Tank in Washington D.C., has published reports that repeatedly demonstrate the lack of efficiency of drone attacks. They specifically noted, “For every one militant that is killed as a result of a drone attack, ten civilians lose their lives.” (Reidel, 2010) They have also stated that by using drones that kill civilians, they are only making Al Qaida more determined and better able to conduct recruitment. When you dehumanize a population, they will do anything to protect themselves and their families – even if it means joining a fight they wanted to avoid. The majority of people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and surrounding areas, want to live peacefully without interference from terrorists or Americans. (Sherjan, 2010) They do not want to continue living in constant fear. Who would? These civilians will turn violent if they feel they are being forced into a corner. They do not understand that we are there to help – especially if they see their families destroyed due to a barrage of missiles coming from the sky.
The missiles from the sky are operated by men and women who have learned to desensitize themselves by turning killing into a game. They are in charge of multi-million dollar death planes that can’t yet differentiate between an enemy and a civilian. The machine operators are some of those same Americans that were recruited into the Military using video games to separate reality from the virtual world. It makes it difficult to feel empathy for a dot on a screen. They clock in and clock out like any nine to five job in the civilian world. These men and women are not there to witness the aftermath of their seemingly routine operations. They may never see actual combat, though they will have racked up more confirmed kills than any other soldier fighting on the ground.
A war fought without boots on the ground is exactly what Washington wants. They want to expand the Predator and Reaper programs to ensure the fewest American Military casualties. Under President Bush, the Predator Program proved its worth. The Obama administration was faced with a difficult decision: do they expand the Predator program to replace soldiers in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq? Or do they maintain the program at its current level, and keep our presence minimal in the area?
The answer was a compromise: expand the Predator Program and minimize the presence of soldiers on the ground. The CIA has their own program running simultaneously, though the workings of which are classified. We can assume they are improving the Predator Program to include a more efficient missile guidance system, as well as to increase the effectiveness of its surveillance system.
The future of these weapons is certain. The government has discovered an “effective” means of fighting a war at a low cost. They can minimize the loss of American soldiers by using unmanned vehicles of all kinds. This will fare well with the American public who want to see soldiers return home, and it fares well with Congress who want to increase our influence in foreign nations through Military dominance.
Currently Northrop Grumman is developing two types of unmanned combat assault vehicles for the Military: the Scaled Composite Models 396 and 395. They are competing with the Hunter-Killer program that produced the Predators and Reapers. The Scaled Composite Models will be produced at half the cost and half the size – making them a more formidable competitor for future wars.
Lockheed Martin, General Atomics, and Boeing, are also cashing in on the CIA and United States interest in unmanned machines. Boeing has developed the HALE: an unmanned surveillance drone that is capable of ten days of flight. Lockheed Martin has invented the smallest drone: the Samurai. The Samurai weighs just 150grams and is capable of shrinking to under three inches in diameter to spy indoors. Lockheed Martin has likewise made advances to the surveillance drone industry with their RQ-170 Sentinel. It has been dubbed the “Beast of Kandahar” because it has been spotted over Afghanistan.
General Atomics is the undisputed leader in unmanned assault vehicle development. Their latest addition is the Avenger which “is packed with 3,000 pounds of surveillance equipment and lethal munitions, such as laser-guided Hellfire missiles and 500-pound GBU-38 bombs. It can reach speeds of up to 530 mph, far faster than its spindly predecessors, the Predator and Reaper.” (Fulghum, 2009)
Some lesser known companies are also vying for a chance at making a wave in this fast growing industry - Aurora Flight Sciences, Scheibel, and Aesir – have all developed competing drones for use in battlefields across the globe.
The United States Air Force is developing an unmanned aerial vehicle called the MQ-MC, which they hope will phase out fighter pilots permanently by 2047. They are working on simulated dogfights which will enable the MQ-MC an opportunity to “acquire the experience” to make decisions during a combat mission. These simulations are designed to increase awareness for the unmanned vehicles – similar to the methods employed by fighter pilots. The Air Force is aiming to create a fleet of unmanned vehicles that are capable of making in flight operations decisions based on the predictability of human fighter pilots. (Homeland Security News, 2009)
The technology responsible for the creation of drones has enabled the CIA and the United States Military to create a new type of war: a war that can be fought on our terms, without the use of soldiers or fighter pilots. It is ostensibly a new approach to a tired routine that could potentially save the lives of Americans. These machines are being designed to replace the manpower that was once required to protect our interests abroad. (Anthony J. Lazarski, 2001)
However, it is important to note that with all new technology, it can be dangerous if left unchecked. The fears of many who oppose the use of drones are that the machines will fight a war without loyalty. Furthermore, there is a fear that surveillance machines will broaden their reach on our own soil. This fear is not without warrant. Already surveillance drones have been deployed to assist in operations on American soil. The government has authorized the use of drones on our homeland in an effort to find terrorists that are operating within our territory. (Tirpak, 1997)
Whichever side of the argument people take, they need to keep in mind the total costs of conducting war without soldiers. Remember the political costs to our allies. How do their countrymen feel about surrendering to a machine versus a commander? During the Gulf War, Iraqi troops famously surrendered to the U.S.S Wisconsin’s drone – the Pioneer. (Archive ) What about the lives that are lost due to the inaccurate air strikes conducted by unmanned combat assault vehicles?
There will no doubt be countless arguments on either side as to whether one should support the drone programs or not. It is rather obvious at present that the drones have caused serious irreversible damage to the regions in which they are deployed. The people who have suffered the most are the women, children, and men that live in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and coming soon: Somalia. These people will never forget these atrocities. Moreover, there will merely be an escalation in violence in these countries due to our mechanical presence. The antipathy people feel toward America will likely rise as well with every drone deployed.
Perhaps in the future there will be an outcry against the use of unmanned assault vehicles. It is possible that seeing the needless destruction, people will call for the machines to be decommissioned. Only the future holds the answer to this and many other questions. And Americans will be right there in front of their computers and televisions watching the latest developments.