E

verybody in the world seems to support justice and the rule of law, and actions to stop the terrorists and anything within this framework is acceptable. Terrorists should not be allowed to plot against innocent people.

However, the drone strategy of the US administration deserves censure from some circles in terms of ethics.

Drones are essentially radio-controlled model aircraft; not a new technology. The US military first began researching and using unmanned aerial vehicles in 1917. The concept of the combat drone was presented in a 1940 publication of the well-known Popular Mechanics magazine by TV engineer Dr. Lee de Forest and the modern military drone was the idea of a model airplane lobbyist John Stuart Foster.

The word '€œdrone'€ comes from the word '€œdran'€, old English usage of '€œmale honeybee'€. It gets its name from the buzzing sound it makes. In addition male honeybees'€™ eyes are twice as big as the queen'€™ eyes or the worker bees which give them superior sight. Male honeybees also have heavy bodies and they have to fly fast enough to escort their queen. So, speed and sharp sight are their distinct characteristics.  

As a result, the mechanical drones also display and take on these two characteristics. They use '€œsight'€ to find their targets and their '€œspeed'€ to be able to fly quickly and undiscovered, striking their target before being noticed (see www.guardianlv.com).

Where and for what purpose are drones used today?

Some examples of more common UCAS'€™s (Unmanned Combat Air System) include the Predator variants and Reaper variants. One of the newest deployed is the X-47, which is extremely high-tech and will enter full deployment in the near future. Investment may reach up to US$94 billion over the next 10 years in these programs.

One of the main reasons the US administration prefers these unmanned aircraft is that contrary to other types of aircraft, drones are able to stay in the air for 30-40 hours. It has far more advantages than an F-16 that can only stay in the air for approximately four hours and then must refuel. Also, since the intelligence and the firing are in the same unit, when it sends the missile, it has an ability to hit the target almost immediately while traveling at supersonic speed.

US President Barack Obama insists that he uses drone attacks for the security of his country against terrorist threats. He says he uses these attacks when it is the only option available and he tells the world that they are legal because America '€œis at war with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and their associated forces.'€

However, the drone policy of the US administration has aroused great criticism from several circles. Some find it unethical as it is considered an execution without fair trial. The CIA uses them in covert missions and they refuse to disclose any details or information on these missions. The US is ahead of the rest of the world in military competition as it spends more on military spending than any other country in the world.

But the problem regarding the use of drones is that there is no specific regulation and no international law regarding these attacks.  

In conventional warfare, the area of attack is usually determined and defined, however with drones, boundaries don'€™t really have to be defined, and thus simultaneous battle fronts can exist in many different and separate regions, spreading warfare and destruction.

Thus international standards of how and when a war can be waged become confusing and exploited. Since 2004, there have been 422 drone attacks on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and in Yemen. Between 2,500 and 4,000 people have been killed and around 25 percent are said to be civilians including children and women according to local estimates (see www.thebureauinvestigates.com).

Farea al-Muslimi, a Yemeni man, said in his testimony before the US Senate: '€œMost of the world has never heard of Wessab. But just six days ago, my village was struck by a drone, in an attack that terrified thousands of simple, poor farmers.'€

He was with an American colleague in Yemen when the local people started to act in fear. People were pointing to the sky as they heard the annoying sound of an American drone. They were very worried because of their past experiences with drones. And this annoying humming sound of the drone is considered as a psychological warfare method.

As quoted by huffingtonpost.com, Muslimi explained his emotions at that moment as such: '€œMy mind was racing and my heart was torn. I was torn between the great country that I know and love and the drone above my head that could not differentiate between me and some AQAP militant. It was one of the most divisive and difficult feelings I have ever encountered. That feeling, multiplied by the highest number mathematicians have and gripped me when my village was droned just days ago. It is the worst feeling I have ever had. I was devastated for days because I knew that the bombing in my village by the United States would empower militants.'€

In a period where people long for love, security, brotherhood, tranquility, justice and unity, is it honestly reasonable for countries to use resources such as this technology to gain an advantage against enemies even if there are innocent lives being lost as collateral damage?  Is it OK for one innocent bystander to be martyred if you are going to kill five terrorists?  

In this situation we should not shut our conscious minds off, and turn a blind eye to the unintended consequences. Shouldn'€™t we try and use such advanced technologies for the development and progress of humanity? Certainly I am against war, and we should use such technologies for peaceful purposes, and we may have much to learn from the bees.

_________________

Thus international standards of how and when a war can be waged become confusing and exploited.