Co-Author Anthony Morrell
This 6-year-old article goes lightly into the many questions associated with the specifics of drone usage in U.S.-sanctioned assassinations. Largely, it seems that drones are both extremely effective at wiping out a target and lacking in significant oversight or public understanding of how they are used. This is at odds with most traditional attacks that, being executed by humans, fall into an existing and extensive chain of command. Anyone in that chain can question an order they believe to be wrong.
But machines have no such safeguards. They’re ridiculously effective and can target with laser precision over a fantastic range. They’re all-seeing, they never sleep, and they never question orders. Where humans would once assemble in mass to swing swords and shoot arrows at each other, we are now in a world where the same can be accomplished with a few button pushes. So are robots a necessary evolution in an evolving combat landscape, or are they a disruptive element that are matched in their power only by their ease of use – and misuse?
One of the most obvious concerns with dangerous, semi-autonomous machinery is their susceptibility to hacking. The potential risks of this are numerous: attacks against civilians, framing other states, and so on. But we must also consider the potential misuse of drones by their intended owners. Both scenarios demonstrate the severe risks involved in developing this kind of weapon.
And the uses which they are put to in this article show the deeply disturbing truth of such tools. They exist outside the ordinary chain of command, use methods that are unknown and unverifiable, and are exercised on targets of chance. This technology is a breeding ground for misuse of power in a deadly fashion. The article already claims that the last administration failed to follow its own rules for the use of drone strikes.
Their convenience is too significant, their effectiveness too certain.
And even more troubling, this isn’t just another case of mutually-assured destruction as with nukes. While nuclear proliferation eventually ensured that no state could actually use their weapons of mass destruction, drones have no such limitations (yet). Anywhere in the world is a potential drone target, is it worth declaring war if only a single target is killed? With sufficiently advanced technology, the state that ordered the strike might not even be traceable, or the death might be made to look like an accident.
Suddenly, the world could become a very dangerous place for those not in the drone’s controller’s favor. And when cybersecurity comes into question, that person could be anyone.