Remotely Piloted Aircraft, Risk, and Killing as Sacrifice: The Cost of Remote Warfare

Abstract

In this paper I argue that a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) pilot’s act of killing remotely, when it is done in the defense of another person, can be viewed as an act of sacrifice. This argument concludes from two premises. First, the RPA pilot faces psychological risk to self by carrying out such an action; second, the RPA pilot is motivated to some significant degree by something other than self-interest. Moreover, I challenge both the view that RPA represent merely an incremental development in technology yielding an incremental expansion of the distance between the war-fighter and the target and the view that RPA is revolutionary in some fundamental sense. I instead argue that, based upon the natural geometric boundary imposed by the earth’s shape, RPA have maximized the physical distance between the war-fighter and the target and, over time, this fact will change, not only the psychological effects on the RPA pilot, but also the way we view killing and distance in general. When taken together, these two broad claims, that other-defense can justify killing in war and that there is a psychological cost paid by remote killers, yield a conception of remote killing as an act of sacrifice that will inform the broader conversation about ethics, risk, killing, and RPA.