Is Remote Warfare Moral?: Weighing Issues of Life and Death from 7,000 Miles

Philosopher and U.S. Air Force officer Chapa debuts with a nuanced if somewhat self-serving consideration of the ethical questions raised by the use of armed, remotely piloted aircraft. He pushes back against the notion that remote warfare is not “real warfare,” pointing out that previous technological innovations, including the advent of submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles, have similarly “challenged standing conceptions and demanded that military operators, strategists, and policy makers modify old ways of thinking.” He also claims that the concept of warfare as a “duel” between enemies who risk their lives on a field of battle is misleading; disputes the idea that drone pilots and crew members adopt a “PlayStation mentality” when operating their aircraft; and claims that while instances of PTSD among drone pilots “are not nearly as common as the Hollywood accounts would have us all believe,” the prevalence of “moral injury,” which is caused by “witness[ing] or participat[ing] in an event that transgresses [one’s] deeply held beliefs about humanity,” needs further study. Chapa’s firsthand experience gives his philosophical conclusions weight, but he shies away from some of the bigger questions he raises about remote warfare, including whether it will encourage leaders to engage in “more wars more often.” The result is a well-informed study whose takeaways feel preordained. (July)