![]() Given that a human operator is projected to remain a central element of such systems, the success of the integration process is squarely dependent on how humans will adapt to increasing automation. As military systems incorporate ever more elements of autonomy, it is essential to assess their potential to become successfully integrated in existing force structures. The present inquiry is motivated foremost by continuous developments in technology. 16 As the firsthand testimonies examined for the purposes of this paper show, creating a black-and-white narrative of the operators’ experiences undermines the informative value of already limited data and artificially reinforces images that this data frequently seeks to reverse. 14 Conversely, Joseph “Joe” Chapa, pointing out that references in the literature to the available data have become circular, advises to exercise caution in selecting evidentiary data points, “not because they are without value, but because they are so few.” 15 While accuracy of both contentions arguably depends on what aspects of UAV operations form the focus of a particular investigation, this papers asserts that limited data on operators’ personal experiences obstructs the attempts of the research community to gain adequate knowledge and develop and share an informed opinion on the subject. Alex Edney-Browne, for example, contends that such testimonies nevertheless offer rich empirical information that may be generalizable to a wider group of active-duty and retired personnel. That said, a few commentators who acknowledge the dearth of available testimonies, disagree on the implications. In social critic Laurie Calhoun’s view, as a non-psychologist, operators are trained “to kill in the manner of sociopaths with no feelings whatsoever for their victims are but icons on computer screens.” 13 Given that little insight on the topic has been offered by the operators themselves, the assertiveness and even boldness of some of the suggested narratives is indeed striking. While occasionally supported by reference to first-person accounts, the narratives are fashioned in nearly absolute terms implying the invalidity of any possible counterrepresentations. For example, the aircrew members are portrayed either as courageously restrained heroes who, due to the nature of their profession, suffer under heavy psychological trauma or as gung-ho joystick warriors responsible for fashioning and sustaining the culture of “convenient killing.” 12 11 The challenges of gaining insight into the work of UAV operators notwithstanding, a number of narratives have been fashioned and maintained early on in the popular and scholarly discourse presenting operators in a particular light. 10 Those few, however, who braved an opportunity to tell their story in detail, lament that the exhausting US government censorship processes take longer to complete than an aircrew member may require to successfully publish a book-length monograph. 9 Information sharing has been further disincentivized with aircrews having been publicly criticized for showing disloyalty to the services. Official security policies prohibit aircrews from discussing the details of their work with anyone who does not hold a security clearance and a need to know. As a rule, their daily labor is systematically protected from public scrutiny. To date, however, only a handful of protagonists (pilots and sensor operators) have spoken about their experience openly. Much ink has been spent to present independent analysis on different facets of these developments. The past decade has witnessed a steadily growing popular and academic interest in these systems, the legal and ethical questions surrounding their use, and their impact on armed conflict and society more generally. 7 More than 90 states operated military UAVs as of 2017, and almost 30 possessed or were capable of using armed UAVs. 6 In 2018, the RAND Corporation, tasked to produce a report on how the proliferation of UAVs will impact US national security interests, concluded that these systems pose an incremental but growing threat to US and allied military operations, predicting that, in future conflicts, US forces will have to cope with adversaries equipped with different types and sizes of UAVs, with and without ordinance on board. ![]() The estimated market 5 is expected to grow from around $6 billion in 2015 to about $12 billion in 2025. ![]() 3 UAVs are “valuable assets in achieving a variety of strategic, operational, and tactical objectives, including ISR missions and kinetic-strike operations.” 4 Because of their numerous battlefield advantages over manned systems, UAVs continue to proliferate on a global scale at an accelerated speed. Military operations involving unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), 1 also known as “drones,” 2 represent a complex sociotechnical system with the human element at its core.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |