HSNW conversation with Dr. Steven P. BucciWorries about UAV use in both military and domestic missions exaggerated
Dr. Steven P. Bucci, a Senior Fellow for Homeland Security & Defense Issues at the Heritage Foundation, talked with Derek Major, the Homeland Security News Wire’s executive editor, about the growing use of UAVs in both military and domestic law-enforcement missions; Bucci says that in targeting militants, American drone operators exercise a great deal of care to minimize, and eliminate if possible, death and injury to innocent civilians; he also says that the use of drones in domestic law-enforcement missions, if done properly, will not pose Big Brother risks, because drones may make surveillance easier and cheaper, but it will not give law-enforcement agencies any new authorities
Dr.Steven P. Bucci // Source: Heritage Foundatin
HSNW: The U.S. is investing a lot of money in enhancing its drone fleet and improving drone technology. Even if we assume that drones are useful in the war against terrorists, do they have a significant role in more traditional military missions vis-a-vis more traditional adversaries such as China, North Korea, etc.?
Steven P. Bucci: The usefulness of drones in a combat situation, counter terrorist or conventional, is not really debated any differently than the use of any weapons system. Today we use them for recon, to carry sensors, to look over the next hill, to conduct surveillance of targets or to do damage assessment, and to do attacks. They’ll work against conventional foes as well as unconventional ones.
HSNW: Critics point to the fact that in drone attacks against terrorists, many civilians have been injured or killed. When comparing drone attacks on terrorists to other methods – using cruise missiles, plane-carried precision-guided munitions, or Special Forces on the ground — do you know whether the ratio of innocent bystanders being killed or injured relative to terrorists being killed or injured in drone attacks is higher than when these other methods are employed? In your view, when does this ratio, if it gets to be too high, become counterproductive (also see question below)?
SPB: On the ground, troops have the most potential to limit collateral casualties. That is the only chance to be “surgical,” but even then, it happens. War has never, and will never be, as surgical as people desire it to be. Drones are probably the next most precise, depending on the weapons they are carrying. After that, PGMs and cruise missiles the least, except for dumb bombs and things like artillery. The ratio question is not a military one, but a purely political calculation. This is wholly dependent on the political leadership; their moral framework, and the interests they see as at stake. Obviously, at some point the “cost” of collateral casualties reaches an unacceptable level (except perhaps for genocidal regimes)
