Ethics of Drone Strikes: Just War, Moral Hazard, and Operators
This paper examines the ethical dimensions of weaponized drone strikes used in U.S. counterterrorism operations. Drawing on political realism and just war theory, it analyzes whether drone strikes can be morally justified as instruments of national security. The paper explores three principal concerns: the moral framework that governs decisions to strike, the psychological and ethical impact on drone operators, and the broader implications for American moral identity. It considers the distinction between personality strikes and signature strikes, the problem of civilian casualties, and the unique moral hazard created when lethal decisions are made at great physical and psychological distance from their consequences. The paper concludes that drone warfare raises unresolved ethical questions that realist and just-war frameworks alone cannot adequately answer.
- Introduction: Drones in Modern Warfare: Realist framework justifies drone use for national security
- Just War Theory and the Ethics of Engagement: Just war theory applied to drone strike justifications
- The Impact on Drone Operators: Psychological and moral hazard of remote killing
- Ethical Considerations: Personality Strikes and Signature Strikes: Kill lists, extrajudicial execution, and operator responsibility
- Conclusion: Drone warfare leaves unresolved ethical and identity questions
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper consistently applies two competing frameworks — political realism and just war theory — across every subtopic, giving the analysis a coherent theoretical spine.
- It moves logically from macro-level questions about the justice of war to micro-level questions about individual operators, keeping abstract ethical claims grounded in concrete examples such as signature strikes and the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki.
- The concept of moral hazard is introduced early and returned to throughout, giving the argument cumulative force rather than treating each section as isolated.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper employs comparative ethical framework analysis: it introduces political realism as the dominant operative logic of U.S. military decision-making, then tests its limits by applying just war theory's three-part structure (jus ad bellum, jus in bello, jus post bellum). By running both frameworks through the same cases — civilian casualties, operator detachment, the kill list — the paper demonstrates where they converge and where they fail to resolve the ethical tension, a technique common in applied ethics writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief contextual introduction, then moves through four substantive sections. The first establishes the realist political framework and Hayden's defense of drone strikes. The second applies just war theory to the decision to strike and the rules of engagement. The third pivots to the human dimension — the psychological and ethical position of the drone operator. The fourth addresses specific legal and ethical distinctions between targeted (personality) and broader (signature) strikes. A concise conclusion synthesizes the moral hazard argument and the question of national identity.
Introduction: Drones in Modern Warfare
The increasing use of drones in combat has raised a number of distinct ethical issues. Drones are typically used to bomb foreign territory while their operators control them remotely, often from locations within the United States. Working with equipment not unlike a video game, operators fly drones into combat or ambush situations and carry out their missions from thousands of miles away. The ethical issues that arise include the impacts on the operators themselves, the impacts on the territories where drones are deployed, and the broader morality of war — which may be fundamentally altered by the use of weaponized drones.
In an op-ed in the New York Times, Michael Hayden (2016) argued that drones play an important role in modern warfare. His position holds that while flaws exist within the program, the program itself is necessary, and it would be better to address those flaws than to abandon drone use altogether. Several underlying principles are worth exploring. First, the United States has historically operated with a realist outlook in world affairs. As such, it uses its economic, political, and military power to achieve its objectives. This creates tensions with other nations and groups, and those tensions sometimes escalate into open conflict. The United States has therefore maintained the world's largest military to address the constant state of conflict in which it finds itself. The doctrine of realism rejects the idea of morality in international politics (Karpowicz, 2013). This rejection is necessary in part because there are many competing moral frameworks by which actions can be judged, and also because international politics is understood in terms of outcomes for each individual nation — if its outcomes are superior, the action is justified.
Hayden's central argument is that the objective of American political action is either to enhance America's interests or to ensure America's safety. The latter is more important because it satisfies the condition of maintaining a standard of existence rather than merely enhancing it. Threats to America's security must therefore be addressed, and this, Hayden maintains, is the role of the military. The specific technology the military employs is ultimately secondary; what matters is that the military performs its mission. Keeping America safe is interpreted as launching attacks on its enemies — sometimes in a punitive manner, sometimes in a pre-emptive one.
Under realism, the only valid measure of drone strikes is their effectiveness in performing a specific role. Hayden argues that drone strikes are effective because they often eliminate senior operatives who are actively planning threats against the United States, including attacks involving weapons of mass destruction. The actual impact of such targeted killings on preventing terrorist attacks can only be speculated, but the military holds that drone strikes have played a critical role in preventing such attacks and therefore regards them as effective.
References
Becker, J. & Shane, S. (2012). Secret kill list proves a test of Obama's principles and will. New York Times. Retrieved April 26, 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html
CCIC (2012). The civilian impact of drones: Unexamined costs, unanswered questions. Center for Civilians in Conflict. Retrieved April 23, 2016 from
Coll, S. (2014). The unblinking stare. The New Yorker. Retrieved April 23, 2016 from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/unblinking-stare
Fair, C., Kaltenthaler, K. & Miller, W. (2014). Pakistani opposition to American drone strikes. Political Science Quarterly, 129(1), 1–33.
Glover, J. (2012). Humanity: A moral history of the twentieth century. Yale University Press: New Haven, CT.
Hayden, M. (2016). To keep America safe, embrace drone warfare. New York Times. Retrieved April 23, 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/opinion/sunday/drone-warfare-precise-effective-imperfect.html
Karpowicz, W. (2013). Political realism in international relations. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved April 23, 2016 from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/
Orend, B. (2005). War. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved April 23, 2016 from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/
Rohde, D. (2015). What the United States owes Warren Weinstein. The Atlantic. Retrieved April 26, 2016 from http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/warren-weinstein-drones/391655/
Williams, B. (2013). Inside the murky world of 'signature strikes' and the killing of Americans with drones. Huffington Post. Retrieved April 26, 2016 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-glyn-williams/nside-the-murky-world-of-_b_3367780.html
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.