The argument defending the U.S. drone program as a legal instrument is centered on the claims found in jus in bello. There are two relevant aspects of war laws, distinction and proportionality. Both principles are developed in the just war tradition, offering a philosophic and ethical guideline for the goals and conducts of war. The principle of distinction prohibits direct attacks on the civilian population; forcing the attacker to differentiate between those directly between hostiles and civilians.
[…] the definition of collateral damage deserves attention in the context of the distinction principle. In discussions of UAVs and collateral damage, a disconcerting ambiguity has surfaced in […] legal briefings, military manuals, and […] drone operators. […] The first definition is a fatal one: collateral
…show more content…
“Drone warfare makes fighting […] wars easier […], but it will also facilitate the prosecution of unjust wars”(Kaag 115), leading the confusion of just and unjust wars. A detailed psychological study in 2011 by the Pentagon showed that nearly 30% of drone pilots experienced “burnout,” a term the military uses when referring to an existential crisis. The disassociation and distance is more troubling to the older drone operators who are seasoned pilots in comparison to younger operators who may never have been trained as pilots. For the younger generation, piloting drones is equivalent to a playstation game; today technology shields soldiers from harm while bringing them closer to their targets by means of surveillance. The move to automate weaponry has removed the human element of moral decision making from war, thereby erasing the ethical responsibility that the military was once faced with. Operators suffer from ‘clinical distress’: anxiety, depression or stress sever enough o affect an operator’s performance when on the job or in their family