Worries about UAV use in both military and domestic missions exaggerated

HSNW:  Tom Friedman of the New York Times, with whom you may not always agree, says that the math used by the U.S. military is different from the math used by terrorists: if we identify 10 terrorists, and kill 5 of them in a drone attack, we say: “10 – 5 = 5” — so now we have only five terrorists to contend with instead of 10. The terrorists’ math, however, is different: if, in addition to the 5 terrorists, 5 innocent civilians were also killed, and 10 members of the families of these civilians now joint the terrorist ranks in order to exact revenge against us, then the terrorist would say: “10 – 5 + 10 = 15” — that is, the terrorists now have 15 terrorists with whom to fight the U.S. Where do you stand on these different mathematical approaches?
SPB: Tom is a very bright guy, but his idea is false.  He is assuming that the military and government do not consider the effects of collateral casualties.  That his bunk.  A great deal of care goes into minimizing them, and eliminating them if possible. Some of that is our moral framework, but it is also a recognition that it is counterproductive, particularly when fighting an insurgency.  Frankly, the terrorists give a lot less concern about hurting their own civilians then we do.

HSNW: Some critics of drones say that the more “antiseptic” nature of drone warfare, with controllers operating the drones from thousands of miles away, and with no risk to the soldiers of the country employing the drones – the critics say that all these aspects of drone warfare make it “easier” and more appealing to use them. In the market place, if you lower the cost of an item, more consumers will buy it. Critics say that drones, by dramatically lowering the cost of military engagement, will increase the number of instances of such engagements. In other words, governments will find it easier to launch wars. Do you think this line of reasoning is valid? 
SPB: It is partially valid.  It is much easier to “take a chance” if you don’t have to worry about losing the lives of your troops.  It is a concern we have at Heritage Foundation with the present administration’s seeming focus on drones and SOF.  One risks no American lives, the other “only” risks the lives of troops who are seen by many as the hardened professionals.  This means none of the “normal” sons and daughters are at risk.  It is “easier,” but frankly may lead to using the wrong assets to address a specific problem.  You cannot wage war with only these assets. 

HSNW: Will unmanned automated systems – in the air, at sea, and on land – one day replace soldiers not only in the sense of firing and being fired at – but as life-and-death decision-makers (when to shoot, who to shoot, etc.)? Will we see a day of no human being in the loop?
SPB: I do not see that happening any time in the near future.  Our sensors are not yet able to make the type of nuanced decisions required.  In some circumstances (the Phalanx ship defense system) once a system is turned on, it kills whatever it radar picks up.  That still requires a human to say “go hot.”  In the future, who knows? For now it is the stuff of good Sci-Fi only.   

HSNW: With other countries, and perhaps terrorist organizations, too —increasing their drone programs, is an attack on the U.S becoming more likely? 
SPB: Drone technology is nearly ubiquitous and getting more so.  Yes, if terrorists can get a hold of some drones, I would expect to see operations against U.S. targets in the future.

HSNW: With cyberattack capabilities and sohistication increasing around the world, is there a legitimate threat of another country or non-state actor hacking into the GPS system of a drones – and, perhaps, using such hacking not only to thwart the drone from carrying out its original mission, but actually instructing it to attack a different target (may be a U.S. position)?
SPB: It is highly unlikely.  The feeds are generally encrypted and I believe they will all be eventually.  Grabbing a guidance feed is very high end.  It is not impossible, but unlikely.  It would be way easier to just get your own. 

HSNW: The U.S. has plans to use drones in border patrol as well as getting closer looks at hurricanes and other natural disasters. There is an increasing talk of using drones for local law-enforcement purposes. Are there any other uses for drones that don’t involve attacking foreign lands?  Weather, crop monitoring, wild fires, traffic control, pretty much anything law enforcement now uses helos or planes for, but at a fraction of the costs in purchase and maintenance.  As drones are being employed in domestic missions, at what point do we have to begin and worry about persistent Big Brother monitoring of our lives, monitoring which compromises rights to privacy and may be in violation of protections against reasonable search and seizure?
SPB: All of the present relevant restrictions on government and LEA will still be in effect.  Drones may make surveillance easier and cheaper, but will NOT give them any new authorities.  It is a new method, but not a new subject.  As long as we continue to jealously (and correctly) protect our rights under the Constitution, drones add no new threats to those rights.  One example often given is the Feds using a drone to monitor your crop usage.  Well, today they can climb up a tree or fly over in a helo and do the same thing. 

HSNW: Will military and defense budget cuts have an effect on drone technology employment and deployment in the United States?
SPB: I don’t think so.  It is still a pretty high priority item. 

Dr. Steven P. Bucci is Senior Fellow, Homeland Security & Defense Issues, at the Heritage Foundation