Comment Paper #2: The Limitations of Drone Warfare

Something that I found particularly interesting in the Bruntsetter article, Drones: The Future of Warfare?, that we had to read for Tuesday was the explanation of some of the tactical limitations of drones. As Bruntsetter explains, several technological shortcomings, such as low flying speed and a need for a clear view from the skies, severely limit the ability and the opportunity for drone use. These shortcomings not only raise questions about the technology itself, but also invoke a political discussion that I believe deserves attention.

As Bruntsetter states, because of their low flying speed, the use of drones must first require air dominance in order to ensure a secure execution of the mission. This is due mostly to the probability that they would be intercepted by any competing aerial power or by anti-aircraft artillery, which would thereby cause hostilities in the region to escalate. Therefore, the question that has to be asked is whether “using conventional air force to first obtain control over the skies” is necessary for any use of drones, as it was in Libya. This goes against some of the rhetoric that has surrounded drones in recent years: that they will replace conventional warfare tactics and spare human lives. It also goes against the typical image that we have of drones as the ultimate spy and war machines, capable of extending American influence to any area. Instead, these revelations show us that drones are not the instruments for spreading hegemony that we thought they were, but instead are a byproduct of hegemony, which is first gained via conventional means of warfare and/or diplomacy. The current political obstacles recently raised in Pakistan and Yemen that have halted the use of drones in those situations further evidence this.

Therefore, if drones necessitate the securing of air dominance in a region before they are used, we have to ask if they are effective as a tool in areas such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. I believe that, despite their technical, tactical, and geopolitical limitations, drones can remain an effective method. While the US would still need to secure air clearance in a region through either military or diplomatic means (at least with the current technological ability of drones), drones are useful in the maintenance of that space. Their ability to provide surveillance of the region in question and to provide a means of security (by attacking hostile intruders/parties) can replace human soldiers in those respects, greatly reducing human casualties. Therefore, while we see that drones cannot be used as a replacement for conventional warfare yet, in the sense that they are unable to actually secure areas or wage campaigns on their own, they are still effective as tools of surveillance and maintenance in areas where military forces are already present.