 |
| Australian Heron Reconnaissance UAV |
By Robert Potter and Chris Sheahan
Drones can do more than just kill people.
Ethical arguments about the use of drones and how they fit within our values fail to consider the technological transformation that have allowed them to confound our expectations. Right now, Australia is engaged in a debate over the ethical implications of using armed drones. This debate has already formed into two sides. Each of these positions mirror the way in which the debate has unfolded within other countries and how those countries have deployed drones. Unfortunately, the nature of drones confounds our ethical measurements because we have few precedents to look to, aside from the international examples of other states. This relies on a prescriptive understanding of drones’ capability when their evolution to this point defies such an approach.
Drones were initially developed for reconnaissance, however the United States found an exploitable capability that could be rapidly adjusted within the contemporary battlespace. Australian analysts, by placing the use of drones within this context, fail to engage with the adjustable mindset that allowed those states that have deployed drones to adapt them to their needs. Basically, this means that commentators are buying into a debate, rather than understanding how technology is shaping the contemporary battlespace.
Behind the success of drones on the battlefield, lie a range of factors. Drones leveraged cheap platforms and emerging technology to create a highly adaptable capability that could easily be deployed in large numbers quickly. Australian commentators, however, treat drones as an end state, when in reality, the platform is anything but.
Read the full story at The Diplomat