James Sitter

Adam Padgett
ENGL 102
9/13/2016

Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles: Murder or a Technological Advantage?

Technology is an ever changing field. Engineers and scientists are always looking for
new and improved ways to build anything and everything bigger, better, faster and more
efficient. This is true in sports, its true in medicine, and its also true in warfare. War is defined
as a situation in which people or groups compete with or fight against each other. But do
advancements in unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) technology take away from the
human decision making aspect of war?
This topic genuinely interests me as a research topic because I served six years of my life
in the Army. Two years of these six were spent on two separate tours to combat zones, both of
which in Afghanistan. During the first tour, I served as a medic for an infantry unit in southern
Afghanistan. During the second tour, I served as a medic for a route clearance platoon whose
main purpose was to find improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and detonate them so that they
wouldnt harm anyone else. During both of these tours we had to deal with situations that most
people would never wish to dream of. Due to this, I cant help but be interested in an alternative
form of warfare that could potentially complete the objective without harming any more combat
troops than necessary. The other side of war is one that most people dont even consider. That is
making sure that local nationals remain safe and set up a secure environment for their future. A
risk of UCAVs is that it could potentially harm more civilians than classic troop to troop war.
That alone could completely defeat the purpose of this relatively new technology.
I have found several articles related to war and to UCAVs. The first one is Everything
you need to know about the drone debate, in one FAQ by Dylan Matthews. The main purpose of
this article is to inform readers on both sides of the debate on whether or not UCAVs should be

James Sitter
Adam Padgett
ENGL 102
9/13/2016

used as an alternative form of warfare. It explains what exactly a UCAVs is and what its
capabilities are, as well as how and when the US government has been using them. Although this
article seems to be biased against drones, it does give insight into what situations the government
uses them. It also explains the legal process for the decision to launch a drone attack and whether
or not it is legal or on the border of illegal.
Another article I found is titled U.S. military casualties and the costs of war: Iraq,
Afghanistan and post-9/11 conflicts by John Wihbey. The main purpose of this article is to
inform what the cost of war really is. Yes, war is expensive, but it also covers costs in terms of
casualties and effects on the people actually fighting the wars. This includes over 100,000
soldiers coming home with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) due to something traumatic
happening during war time (Wihbey, 2013). Although this article may be biased, it is certainly
not in terms of UCAVs. In fact, one of the reasons I chose this article is because it has no
mention of UCAVs. It only mentions casualties for both sides of the conflict. The main source of
bias in this article could be found in the fact that it is mainly discussing the effect of war on the
U.S. side. There is far less mention of the effect on the host country.
The third article I researched is Drones are the worst form of war, except for the other
by William Saletan. This is probably the most biased of all of the article, however, it is loaded
with actual data, like the civilian death rate of UCAV strikes are 6% (Saletan, 2013). This death
rate explains that, per drone strike, 6% of the deaths in the strike are civilian bistanders. The
main purpose of this article is to discuss whether drones are actually causing more damage than
troop to troop combat by way of civilian casualties and to talk about whether or not the argument

James Sitter
Adam Padgett
ENGL 102
9/13/2016

against drone strikes due to civilian casualties is valid. It also breaks down the effectiveness of
the air strikes of UCAVs and how they could assist in lowering friendly casualties.
The first line of inquiry that I would like to investigate are Do drone strikes make the
decision to kill other human beings easier? The second would be Is the decision to launch
UCAV airstrikes going through enough levels in order to make the proper decision? The last
would be What kinds of ramifications could drone strikes have on modern warfare?
I think these research questions are definitely researchable, although there is no clear cut
answer to any of them. I have found several agreements that UCAVs are more precise and able
to take out targets more effectively. The main disagreement is whether or not the decision
making process goes through enough people in order to make the proper decision or whether
launching UCAV airstrikes are too easy. These perspectives definitely affect me because it makes
the decision of whether or not to use UCAVs more in depth. Not only do you have to take into
account the effectiveness of these drone strikes, but also the accessibility and whether or not
there should be a more in depth process to the decision making.

James Sitter
Adam Padgett
ENGL 102
9/13/2016
Bibliography
Matthews, Dylan. "Everything You Need to Know about the Drone Debate, in One
FAQ." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 8 Mar. 2013. Web. 21 Sept.
2016.
Wihbey, John. "U.S. Military Casualties and the Costs of War: Iraq, Afghanistan and
Post-9/11 Conflicts - Journalist's Resource." Journalists Resource. Harvard
Kennedy's School Shorenstein Center, 22 Oct. 2013. Web. 21 Sept. 2016.
Saletan, William. "Drones Are the Worst Form of War, Except for All the Others."
Slate Magazine. Science, Technology, and Life., 19 Feb. 2013. Web. 21 Sept.
2016.