The use of drones does nothing to halt the rise of terrorism.

Discuss and
evaluate.

World War 2 showed the world the power of aircraft; Roosevelt put it that, Hitler built
a fortress around Europe, but he forgot to put a roof on it. Cowely and harper built
upon the importance saying A significant turning point of World War II, the Battle of
Britain ended when Germanys Luftwaffe failed to gain air superiority over the Royal
Air Force. With such a tall performance came a high attrition rate, 55,000 British
aircrew died between 1939 and 1945 with Fielder commenting the highest loss rate
of any major branch of the British armed forces. The success of the V1 & V2
Rockets Hitlers Robot Bombs (Adorno), considered by many as the grandfather
of drones have shown the devastation of the weapon and negated the human being
present. Hollingham reported that several thousand people were killed by the
missile 2,724 in Britain alone. Fast forward to today and the growing advances in
technology have led to many experts to agree with Raddin that the human is the
limiting factor in aircraft performance due to pilot loss of consciousness during
manoeuvres. With no need to design out human limiting factors and the destruction
of the weapon apparent, the development and use of drones in conventional warfare
is apparent. However, a growing concern has been displayed over the drone-based
targeted killing program creating a new challenge to the traditional legal and ethical
standards of armed conflict (Boyle) that could challenge the use of drones in the
Counter Terrorism role. This assignment aims to answer the question does the use
of drones halt the rise of terrorism discussing the validity and success of the
weapon system or lack thereof. I will be specifically debating British Armed Forces
involvement and use during Operation Herrick in Afghanistan: 2008-2014 and
Operation Shader in Iraq: 2014 to present (Brooke-Holland).

(304)

(http://www.skygod.com/quotes/airpower.html)
(http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-britain)
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/air_war_bombers_01.shtml)
Minima Moralia
(http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140905-the-nazis-space-age-rocket)
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3593140)
(http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2014.991210)
Briefing paper Number 06493, 8 October 2015

Brooke-Holland states that the UK Armed Forces currently have five different types
of operational remotely piloted aircraft systems. They are predominantly used in
what is known as an ISR capacity: intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; or
an ISTAR role: intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, reconnaissance. With
only one system, the Reaper (which has been in service since 2007), with ability to
carry offensive weapons. This system will be replaced by the Scavenger/Protector
programme due for 2018. Lawton states Unmanned aircraft such as the Predator
and the Reaper can hover over remote areas and do surveillance for hours, even
days the drones can release missiles or bombs with no risk to those operators.
The use of drones may be strategic, but is it moral? this opens an avenue for the
ethics dialogue over the use of lethal force.
Sascha-Dominik states Targeted Killing is being used as means of both combat and
counterterrorism and poses the interesting question what constitutes targeted
killing and what distinguishes it from assassinations. Ethics is defined as
distinguishing between good and evil in the world, between right and wrong human
actions, and between virtuous and nonvirtuous characteristics of people. thus the
area is inherently subjective and personal. Is there a just cause? Is this the last
resort? Can the use of force actually do the thing that we claim we are setting out to
do? And is our use of force proportional to the problem we are trying to solve?
When we ask questions like that were asking moral questions. I think those are the
right questions to ask (Carter) demonstrates the complexity of the issues of taking a
terrorists life. Does the means justify the ends?

Mockaitis report says supporters argue that the weapons allow the U.S. [and UK] to
kill its enemies without risking the lives of American [and British] soldiers, that they
are far more precise than other weapons systems, and that they, therefore, do far
less collateral damage. Critics insist that they make it too easy to kill from a
distance, that they cause far more civilian casualties than the government admits
and that anger over them fuels terrorism. Which highlights the concern of civilian
casualties from the use of offensive action of drones. Can you endanger or
terminate the lives of a few to stop the death of many? Is a pre-emptive strike that
has the capability to kill innocents classed as self-defence?

So where does the moral responsibility lie, with the Government Officials? Military
Commanders or the drones pilot? Should the general publics ethical viewpoint play
apart in National Security matters? Some people will agree with the use of drones
and others will not. Human beings have been fighting each other since prehistoric
times, and people have been discussing the rights and wrongs of it for almost as
long. (BBC). In the 14th century French knights railed against the immorality of the
English long bow, which allowed a commoner to knock a knight off his horse at over
100 yards (Mockaitis). New Military Technology has a history of being scrutinised
by society, yet many that have introduced an advantage have carried on even to this
day.

You cant quantify the positive or negative effect of ethics in the use of drones
against terrorists, but negative public opinion could put pressure on their cease of
use. The art of war and the killing machines that they produce have been topic of
moralities since the beginning of war and will continue until confrontation ends. So
how does the UK Military tackle these opinionated topics? They rely on International
Law. Specifically, the Law of Armed Conflict.

(600)

Briefing paper Number 06493, 8 October 2015

(http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2012/03/02/august-26-2011-the-ethics-of-
drones/9350/)
http://jcsl.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/2/259.full
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ethics
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2012/03/02/august-26-2011-the-ethics-of-
drones/9350/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-mockaitis/drones-and-the-ethics-of_b_8961510.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/overview/introduction.shtml
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-mockaitis/drones-and-the-ethics-of_b_8961510.html

Normand and Poarch describe The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), or International
Humanitarian Law (IHL) as it is sometimes referred to, is a unique branch of
international law which governs the conduct in hostilities. Consisting on 4 basic
principles, Distinction, Proportionality, Military Necessity and Unnecessary Suffering.
It protects both combatants and non-combatants. LOAC aims to mitigate the
confusing of ethics that surround war by creating a legal interpretation of the moral
dilemmas. As discussed in the previous paragraph ethics is subjective but using
LOAC someone who believes that an action is ill moral can then decide if the action
is unlawful. Thus, prosecute or end the practice.

Lord Aster states that Armed Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems are operated by the
UK's Armed Forces in accordance with the same domestic and international legal
framework and Departmental policy that regulates conventional manned aircraft.
The Doctrine and Rules of Engagement that govern and underpin the use of armed
RPAS are aligned to both current UK policy and International Humanitarian Law.
This suggests that the UK Defence use the weapons lawfully and ethically.
However, many have criticized the CIAs use of drones hinting at potentially unlawful
activities. The CIA can use drones to spy, but when it comes to warfare, it is less
accountable than the military chain of command, less used to applying the rules of
war and less inclined to pay compensation to the families of innocent civilians who
have been killed. With Doward, Ross and Townsend suggesting UK involvement in
US activities an MoD spokesman said: UK personnel embedded with the US air
force have only flown remotely piloted aircraft systems in support of operations in
Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq. The carefully worded response leaves open the
possibility that drones flown by UK personnel have been operating over the remote
tribal regions of Pakistan that adjoin Afghanistan Last year the former head of
GCHQ, David Omand, called for safeguards to ensure that RAF pilots embedded at
Creech did not inadvertently collude in drone actions contrary to international law.
This is of course reporter speculation, but it does highlight the use of drones by other
countries within NATO and the UN, which the British Armed Forces are a part of.
Bringing with it the scrutiny over the legalities of such weapons.

Self Defence is another argument of legality. In order for a legal use a number of
conditions must be satisfied for a state to be entitled to invoke the right of self-
defence: there must be (1) an armed attack which must be (2) actual or imminent
and the resort to force must be both (3) necessary and (4) proportionate. With the
death of two British militants in Syria David Cameron told MPs that the strikes were
legal because they were taken to prevent attacks on the UK. But some experts
questioned whether the alleged attacks were imminent, throwing into question their
legitimacy (Doward, Ross and Townsend). Their report hints at the blurred lines of
self-defence used by the UK. Prompting Philippe Sands QC to call for more
evidence on how the attack met the legal requirement of self-defence (Brooke-
Holland).

Unlawful use of drones could be used as a factor against the use of drones against
terrorists. If Judges decide that the remit the UK has been operating under is flawed,
then the use of drones could potentially be banned. So again Legality, like ethics
does not help answer our question. However, it is a massive driving force behind the
use of these weapons. Meaning if there had been any progress made using drones
against terrorists, it would cease immediately.

(598)

https://loacblog.com/loac-basics/what-is-the-loac/
Briefing paper Number 06493, 8 October 2015
http://www.economist.com/node/21524876
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/12/uk-role-in-pakistan-drone-attacks-concern-
mounts
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201516/jtselect/jtrights/574/57416.htm
Briefing paper Number 06493, 8 October 2015

1 Intro (300)
2 & 3 Ethics (600)
4 & 5 Legality (600)
6 & 7 Cost (600)
8 & 9 Stats and interpretation (600)
10 Conclusion (300)

This assignment has addressed the statement The use of drones does nothing to
halt the rise of terrorism, by looking at the moral, legal and cost implications whilst
ultimately determining and quantifying the effect of UK flown drones and their effect
against global terrorism. The author does not agree with the statement, as nothing
implies that no effect has taken place on terrorism. This is simply not the case; Al
Qaeda is a shadow of its former self and with no British ground operations currently
taking place in Afghanistan the only British deterrent is drones. This is in part thanks
to the Afghanistan Security Forces. However, it was undeniably the intelligence
gathering capabilities of drones that supplied our Global Counter Terrorist
organisations with the information they needed to find Bin Laden. No organisation
can be successful when their management and leadership personalities are being
found and eliminated.

Law will always be affected by morality and these two factors are the biggest threat
against the use of drones. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the discussion
about legality and ethics should be and is welcomed. However, their targets, the
terrorists, have no laws. They dont care about Distinction, Proportionality, Military
Necessity or Unnecessary Suffering. They wont sit around and discuss the morality
or legality of their suicide bomb or indiscriminate shootings after the event. They
care for one thing, their own agenda and they will kill anyone, even women and
children to get it. If we can continue to work within the confines of our Laws and
continue to evaluate our ethical dilemmas against such a foe, then it is my opinion
the means justify the ends. War is terrible, war is horrible, but war is also at times
necessary and the only means of stopping evil. (unknown)

(298)

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=912