Destructive Drones: The Rise of Distance Warfare

The Bayraktar T2 and other drones like it are transforming the landscape of armed conflict. (Wikimedia Commons)

Ukrainian drones destroyed a large Russian ammunition depot 100 miles northwest of Moscow on September 18, injuring at least 13 people. This operation highlights the increasing reliance on unmanned aerial warfare, a strategy that has gained prominence in recent years.

Ukraine uses them to attack targets deep inside Russia. The Houthis utilize them in their conflict with Israel. Mali and the Wagner Group employ them in the West African nation’s ongoing civil war. Drones, the flagship of modern remote warfare, are reshaping the battlefield.

Leaders are finding it harder to justify sending thousands of troops to bleed on the battlefield and are resorting to drone raids to fill the gap. But are these new killing machines more humane, or do they wreak more havoc on the world?

Since the dawn of time, the goal of armed conflict has always been to inflict maximum damage with minimal risk. First it was shields and long spears. Then came the bow and arrow and the catapult. Humans then invented guns and artillery. But perhaps no weapon of war is as efficient as drones that can fly for 80 hours without refueling and carry payloads weighing up to 400 pounds.

Unlike traditional battles, which require direct confrontation and put thousands of soldiers’ lives at risk, distance combat uses technology to raid from a distance. Drones, cyberattacks, and precision-guided missiles allow for targeted strikes with a near-zero casualty risk for the attacker. Death often comes from a distance, with the attacker sitting in a control room many miles away from the battlefield. 

Drones are also leveling the playing field in war. In Ukraine, these unmanned vehicles are taking down Russian tanks, conducting reconnaissance over enemy territory, and destroying bridges over the Black Sea. While Russia vastly outnumbers Ukraine in soldiers, tanks, and aircraft, drones are a cheap and effective way to strike back at the invading troops. However, the relative ease of manufacturing or acquiring autonomous aircraft has bolstered the ranks of non-state actors and terrorist organizations as well, such as the Islamic State (ISIS) and various Mexican drug cartels.

Critics have also alleged that distance warfare increases civilian casualties through accidental collateral killing or through the intentional targeting of civilians or humanitarian infrastructure, an act the Geneva Convention deems a war crime. Estimates project that civilians comprised between seven and 15 percent of all drone strike-related casualties from U.S. airstrikes between 2009 and 2016, although the U.S. government argues that the true figure is much lower, around three percent. The increasing reliance on drones brings into question the ethics of killing at a distance, where war becomes more detached and decision-makers are further removed from the battlefield’s human cost.
Regardless of ethical debates about the matter, it is undeniable that remote combat is now commonplace in military doctrines across the world. Drones are here to stay. Today, nearly a third of the United States’ military aircraft are pilotless. As the world’s wartime capabilities continue to evolve, its reliance on drones and other unmanned systems will likely expand, not only calling into question old military strategy, but also ethics and international laws. It will be interesting to see how debates surrounding remote warfare manifest themselves on the battlefield and at home.