‘We watched his whole life unfold. . .Then you watch the death’: drone tactics, operator trauma, and hidden human costs of contemporary wartime

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Relations Pub Date : 2022-10-25 DOI:10.1177/00471178221135036
Terilyn Johnston Huntington, Amy E. Eckert
{"title":"‘We watched his whole life unfold. . .Then you watch the death’: drone tactics, operator trauma, and hidden human costs of contemporary wartime","authors":"Terilyn Johnston Huntington, Amy E. Eckert","doi":"10.1177/00471178221135036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scholars of war and combat posit that soldiers are more willing to execute strikes on adversaries when they perceive lower risk to themselves or less connection with their targets. Accordingly, technologies like the drone, which drastically expands the distance between adversaries, should make it easier to strike decisively and without remorse. The empirical record tells a different story. Despite operating very far away from the battle theater, drone operators suffer PTSD at the same rate as pilots of manned aircraft. We argue that this unanticipated consequence of drone warfare stems from the unique way in which drone tactics marry spatial distance and temporal duration. Drone operators surveil their targets via detailed video footage for extended periods of time, both before and after firing, in order to identify or locate potential targets, to measure collateral risks, and afterward to assess a strike’s effectiveness. We argue that the clarity and duration of this surveillance tempers any advantage derived from ‘distance’. Spatial distance protects drone operators from enemy fire but temporal proximity exposes them to greater emotional costs of killing than previously thought. Indeed, prolonged observation temporally extends ‘contact’ and mitigates the dehumanizing effects imputed to distance. This unexpected effect highlights a shifting ethical dilemma. In the formulation of the ‘naked soldier’, combatants in a just war deserve respect due to shared vulnerability. Yet while spatial distance physically protects the drone operator, it also requires that they identify vulnerable and legitimate targets through contemporary timing practices that establish intimate knowledge of that target and may thus denude and even heighten the operator’s emotional vulnerability. While others have argued that contemporary wartime features technologies and tactics that undercut conventions about legitimate combat, we uncover an emerging ethical problem in moral and psychological harms associated with the way that drone warfare trades space for time.","PeriodicalId":47031,"journal":{"name":"International Relations","volume":"77 1","pages":"638 - 657"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178221135036","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Scholars of war and combat posit that soldiers are more willing to execute strikes on adversaries when they perceive lower risk to themselves or less connection with their targets. Accordingly, technologies like the drone, which drastically expands the distance between adversaries, should make it easier to strike decisively and without remorse. The empirical record tells a different story. Despite operating very far away from the battle theater, drone operators suffer PTSD at the same rate as pilots of manned aircraft. We argue that this unanticipated consequence of drone warfare stems from the unique way in which drone tactics marry spatial distance and temporal duration. Drone operators surveil their targets via detailed video footage for extended periods of time, both before and after firing, in order to identify or locate potential targets, to measure collateral risks, and afterward to assess a strike’s effectiveness. We argue that the clarity and duration of this surveillance tempers any advantage derived from ‘distance’. Spatial distance protects drone operators from enemy fire but temporal proximity exposes them to greater emotional costs of killing than previously thought. Indeed, prolonged observation temporally extends ‘contact’ and mitigates the dehumanizing effects imputed to distance. This unexpected effect highlights a shifting ethical dilemma. In the formulation of the ‘naked soldier’, combatants in a just war deserve respect due to shared vulnerability. Yet while spatial distance physically protects the drone operator, it also requires that they identify vulnerable and legitimate targets through contemporary timing practices that establish intimate knowledge of that target and may thus denude and even heighten the operator’s emotional vulnerability. While others have argued that contemporary wartime features technologies and tactics that undercut conventions about legitimate combat, we uncover an emerging ethical problem in moral and psychological harms associated with the way that drone warfare trades space for time.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“我们看着他的一生展开……然后你看到他的死亡”:无人机战术、操作员的创伤,以及当代战争中隐藏的人类成本
研究战争和战斗的学者认为,当士兵认为自己面临的风险较低或与目标的联系较少时,他们更愿意对敌人实施打击。因此,像无人机这样的技术,可以大大扩大对手之间的距离,应该更容易进行果断和毫无悔意的打击。经验记录告诉我们一个不同的故事。尽管离战场很远,无人机操作员患创伤后应激障碍的几率与有人驾驶飞机的飞行员相同。我们认为,无人机战争的这种意想不到的后果源于无人机战术结合空间距离和时间持续时间的独特方式。无人机操作员在发射前后通过详细的视频片段长时间监视目标,以识别或定位潜在目标,衡量附带风险,然后评估打击的有效性。我们认为,这种监控的清晰度和持续时间抵消了“距离”带来的任何优势。空间上的距离可以保护无人机操作员免受敌人的攻击,但时间上的接近会让他们在杀戮中付出比之前想象的更大的情感代价。事实上,长时间的观察在时间上延长了“接触”,减轻了距离造成的非人性化影响。这一意想不到的结果凸显了一个不断变化的伦理困境。在“裸兵”的表述中,正义战争中的战斗人员应该受到尊重,因为他们有共同的脆弱性。然而,虽然空间距离在物理上保护了无人机操作员,但它也要求他们通过当代的定时实践来识别脆弱和合法的目标,从而建立对目标的亲密了解,从而可能剥夺甚至加剧操作员的情感脆弱性。虽然其他人认为,当代战争的特点是技术和战术削弱了关于合法战斗的惯例,但我们发现了一个正在出现的伦理问题,即无人机战争以空间换取时间的方式带来的道德和心理伤害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Relations
International Relations INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: International Relations is explicitly pluralist in outlook. Editorial policy favours variety in both subject-matter and method, at a time when so many academic journals are increasingly specialised in scope, and sectarian in approach. We welcome articles or proposals from all perspectives and on all subjects pertaining to international relations: law, economics, ethics, strategy, philosophy, culture, environment, and so on, in addition to more mainstream conceptual work and policy analysis. We believe that such pluralism is in great demand by the academic and policy communities and the interested public.
期刊最新文献
A neoclassical realist model of overconfidence and the Japan–Soviet Neutrality Pact in 1941 Brazil’s pragmatic equidistance: hedging and the Second World War Mediated public diplomacy and securitisation theory: the US campaign against Chinese 5G in Brazil and Chile Domestic terrorism, incumbency, and legislative vote shares The customer is always right? Flags of convenience and the assembling of maritime affairs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1