Joanna Larson

Inside a dimly-lit trailer at Creech Air Force Base, an hour outside of Las Vegas, Nevada, Lieutenant Steve Watts and Airman First Class Carrie Gershon fly an MQ-9 Reaper drone by remote control over a small village in Kenya, Africa. Their mission is to eliminate two confirmed terrorists by firing a Hellfire missile at their meeting point, but the pilots are faced with an impossible dilemma: if they bomb the house and kill the terrorists, they risk killing an innocent girl selling bread just outside the door; if they don’t bomb the terrorists and save the girl, they risk the terrorists escaping and fulfilling their plan to suicide bomb eighty people. This story, from the movie Eye In The Sky, is a Hollywood portrayal of real-life situations that happen almost every day. This movie provides good insight into the thought, care, and precision drone pilots need to make tough decisions that can ultimately save hundreds of lives and benefit our country.

In order to understand my thesis better, I will define two key terms. The following definitions are quoted or adapted from Merriam Webster’s Dictionary. “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles” (UAVs), otherwise known as drones, are unmanned aircraft guided by remote control or onboard computers. “ Reconnaissance” is a preliminary survey to gain information; especially : an exploratory military survey of enemy territory. I am defining these terms for clarification when they are used later.

Post 9/11, drones have become the US Military’s weapon of choice, but they have been around for much longer. Air Warfare is a relatively new phenomena. The first aerial attacks occurred in 1911, used by the Italians against the Turks, but the use of aircraft in battle did not become a widespread concept until The Great War in 1914-1918. The concept of drones was inevitable from the beginning. As much as the use of aircraft was beneficial, there was still one major disadvantage: soldiers’ lives were risked because they needed to be physically in the plane to complete their missions (Sifton). During World War 1, the US Military hired Elmer Ambrose Sperry, inventor of the gyroscopic compass, to build a biplane that could be launched by a catapult and then guided by radio signals over enemy positions to be blown up with TNT. A biplane is an aircraft with two main supporting surfaces usually placed one above the other (Merriam-Webster). The program was considered a failure, as the planes often crashed soon after takeoff. After World War 1, interest in automated flying weapons systems increased. In 1925, the British Royal Navy designed a small, pilotless aircraft called the RAE Larynx that could torpedo into targets and blow them up. The RAE Larynx was intended to be used against German Zeppelins, blimp-like aircraft that had reigned terror on Europe by dropping bombs. Overall, primitive drones like these proved relatively ineffective. In World War 2, drone production began to gain some ground, but ultimately failed again. The US Navy began to refit B-24 Bomber planes to target German bunkers. These planes were filled with explosives and guided by remote control. At this point, remote control technology was still crude, so a pilot would have to takeoff in the plane and guide it to a cruising altitude. Then, the pilot would parachute safely to England, and a “mothership” would guide the plane to its intended target. This program was considered unsuccessful because many of the planes crashed before the pilots could parachute to safety. John F. Kennedy’s older brother, Joseph, was killed when the drone in which he was flying exploded prematurely (Sifton).

After all the failed attempts in World War 1 and World War 2, development of drones stagnated for decades; there was no pressing need for them. Instead, cruise missiles became the world’s weapon of choice. The Cold War prompted the creation of these weapons. Cruise missiles are guided missiles that have a terrain-following radar system and fly at moderate speed and low altitude. They are similar to drones, as they are guided by remote control. Unlike drones, they could not linger over locations or return to a base. Since the missile itself was the weapon, its delivery was very blunt and semi-unpredictable (Sifton). The military needed something with more precision. Air Force scientists continued to work with the idea of unmanned aircraft, and in the early ’70s, they focused on non-weaponized UAVs, specifically made for surveillance. Advances in technology during the ’80s and ’90s brought us the beginnings of modern day drones.

In 1981, aerospace engineer Abraham Karem created a drone called “Albatross.” He proved his drone could stay in the air for up to 56 hours. This prompted the military’s research and development department to fund his research. Karem’s next creation, “The Amber,” was a drone the military flew on numerous missions to gather intelligence. In 1995, Karem introduced his newest creation: the “Predator.” The Predator would eventually become one of the US Military’s most feared weapons (Whittle).

The government was impatient with its civilian contractors about the speed of development, so it started its own drone department. For many years, the benefits of this program were very few, because the CIA was forced by congress to keep a very tight grip on the program. In 1992, the Bosnian War lifted many of these restrictions. The military needed persistent surveillance over Bosnia, so it responded with the Predator drone. This version of the Predator proved to be successful, with its ability to stay airborne for many hours and its impressive line of sight. This was the first time drone pilots could be in a different region to operate the drone. In 1995, the Air Force began its very first drone squadron: the 11th reconnaissance squadron stationed at Creech AFB, just outside of Las Vegas, Nevada. Here began production to turn this non-weaponized surveillance hunter into a killer. The predator now lives up to its name, as it is a fully weaponized system that can conduct surveillance missions as well as strike targets. The US Air Force’s official web site gives this description of today’s Predator:

The MQ-1B Predator is an armed, multi-mission, medium-altitude, long-endurance remotely piloted aircraft that is employed primarily as an intelligence-collection asset and secondarily against dynamic execution targets. Given its significant loiter time, wide-range sensors, multi-mode communications suite, and precision weapons, it provides a unique capability to perform strike, coordination and reconnaissance (SCAR) against high-value, fleeting, and time-sensitive targets. Predators can also perform the following missions and tasks: intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, close air support, combat search and rescue, precision strike, buddy-lase, convoy/raid overwatch, route clearance, target development, and terminal air guidance. The MQ-1’s capabilities make it uniquely qualified to conduct irregular warfare operations in support of combatant commander objectives.

The M in MQ-1B Predator stands for multi-role. Multi-role means the Predator is capable of both persistent surveillance as well as striking targets. Some drones are surveillance only, while some others are for striking only. The US Air Force says this about the Predator: The Predator remotely piloted aircraft system continues to provide required armed intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities to overseas contingency operations warfighters. During August 2011, the Predator surpassed one million hours of total development, test, training, and combat — a significant accomplishment for the U.S. Air Force.

The other two major drones used by the Air Force are the RQ-4 Global Hawk and MQ-9 Reaper. The RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aircraft system is the premier provider of persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance information. Able to fly at high altitudes for greater than 30 hours, the Global Hawk is designed to gather near-real-time, high-resolution imagery of large areas of land in all types of weather – day or night (Northrop Grumman). Although the Global Hawk doesn’t carry Hellfire missiles, it is invaluable for its high-quality imaging systems. The information Global Hawks provide is so important that at any point in time, there is always a Global Hawk in the air. The MQ-9 Reaper is the primary offensive strike unmanned aerial vehicle for the Air Force. Given its significant loiter time, wide-range sensors, multi-mode communications suite, and precision weapons – it provides a unique capability to perform strikes, coordination, and reconnaissance against high-value, fleeting, and time-sensitive targets (“MQ-9”). Although missiles are the Reaper’s most known feature, its surveillance systems are crucial to the mission. They provide intel, images, and video that support soldiers.

Safety and Surveillance are the two most important reasons drones are relevant in today’s world. Drones provide safety to US Military personnel like no other weapon. Their ability to be a protective eye in the sky, as well as the gains made from the intelligence collected make them invaluable. The way warfare is conducted has changed since 9/11. Post-9/11, terrorists’ thirst for the destruction of America has significantly increased. The amount of money and resources put into drone development and drone squadrons help us understand why drones are such an integral part of how the War On Terror is being fought.

Not everyone might be as interested in the military as those so closely involved with it. If an individual doesn’t know anyone currently serving in the military or who has served in the past, it can be difficult to find an emotional connection to the military. Not everyone may care about the day-to-day operations of the military, but it’s important to understand why they’re doing what they’re doing. Our military exists for our defense. They fight for our welfare; we ought to care about their safety. Their safety is our safety.

In order to prove the United States must continue the use of drone warfare, I will confirm three arguments: first, drones help keep the country safe by eliminating terrorist threats overseas; second, drones provide safety to US military personnel by providing high-quality imaging and video of enemy territory; and third, drones limit the amount of civilian casualties because of their accuracy and technical precision. I will then refute two counter arguments: first, airmen who work with drones have an emotional disconnect from war; and second, drones are unethical.

My first confirmation argument is drones help keep the country safe by eliminating terrorist threats overseas. The dictionary defines a terrorist as “ a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” Over the past few decades, terrorism has increased exponentially. On September 11, 2001, planes hijacked by al-Qaeda terrorists crashed into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 people. This unprecedented attack on our own soil was a horrific tragedy, and a s the War On Terror intensifies, the United States has taken the fight to the heart of the enemy in their own land , exposing the people who would kill every American before they have the chance to reach them. Drones are an effective tool in this endeavor.

Two methods can measure the military effectiveness of drones. First is their ability to successfully disrupt enemy capabilities. In declassified documents found in Osama Bin Laden’s compound, it is evident drone strikes made Bin Laden and his comrades very uneasy. One of the letters stated, “Over the last two years, the problem of the spying war and spying aircrafts benefited the enemy greatly and led to the killing of many jihadi cadres, leaders, and others. This is something that is concerning us and exhausting us” (“Drones in the Abbottabad”).

The second measurement is how well drone strikes slow and inhibit communication between the enemy as they’re trying to prevent suspicion. The fear of being located by drones causes terrorist groups to communicate via letters, which slows communication overall. Survivors in a strike often cause conflict in their group because the leaders look for informants. Author Ensign Lacinski states:

Further, UAVs have proved effective at eliminating terrorist leadership including Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan founder Baitullah Mehsud; Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan leader Tahir Yuldashev; Majmiddin Jalolov, leader of the Islamic Jihad Union; and Saleh al-Somali, al Qaeda’s chief of operations, among others. The combination of these effects has produced a profound degradation on militant organizations that reduces their capabilities to launch regional and international attacks.

My second confirmation argument is drones provide safety to US military personnel by providing high-quality imaging and video of enemy territory . The imaging and video they provide is critical as they can alert soldiers of incoming enemy presence that might not be noticed from the ground. Drones provide safety by alerting soldiers of incoming enemy presence, providing imagery for soldiers to get from point A to point B, and helping soldiers plan attacks on and assets the enemy. Drones can spot enemy vehicles coming from miles away and give friendly forces sufficient time to plan accordingly. I will discuss three broad categories of drones that protect soldiers by providing imaging and video: High altitude drones, medium altitude drones, and low altitude drones.

High altitude drones, such as the RQ-4 Global Hawk: t he RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aircraft system are the premier provider of persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance information. By persistent intelligence, I mean a strategy that emphasizes the ability of some collection systems to linger on demand in an area to detect, locate, characterize, identify, track, target, and possibly provide battle damage assessment and retargeting in real or near time (The Free Dictionary). Able to fly at high altitudes for greater than 30 hours, the Global Hawk is designed to gather near-real-time, high-resolution imagery of large areas of land in all types of weather – day or night (“Global Hawk”). Although the Global Hawk doesn’t carry missiles, it is invaluable for its high-quality imaging systems. The information Global Hawks provide is so important that at any point in time, there is always a Global Hawk in the air.

Second are medium altitude drones, such as the MQ-9 Reaper. The MQ-9 Reaper is the primary offensive strike unmanned aerial vehicle for the Air Force. Given its significant loiter time, wide-range sensors, multi-mode communications suite, and precision weapons, it provides a unique capability to perform strike, coordination, and reconnaissance against high-value, fleeting, and time-sensitive targets (“MQ-9 Reaper”). By loiter time, I mean the ability to stay airborne for a significant amount of time. Although missiles are the Reaper’s most known feature, its surveillance systems are crucial to the mission.

Third are low altitude drones such as the the RQ-11B Raven. The RQ-11B Raven small unmanned aircraft system provides real-time direct situational awareness and target information for Joint Special Operations troops in the U.S. military. The Raven includes a color electro-optical camera and an infrared camera for night operations. The air vehicle is hand-launched, weighs less than 5 pounds and has an endurance of up to 80 minutes (“RQ-11B Raven”). Because the Raven is so small, it has the ability to get closer to its target, which provides advantages for the soldiers who are relying on the information it collects. These advantages might include the ability to get geographically closer to enemy territory than a larger drone, such as the Global Hawk. Many different types of drones provide detailed images and video to give soldiers intel to keep them safe.

Drones image and video two main things: US soldiers and the enemy. As I mentioned before, one of the reasons drones are constantly surveying the land is to help protect soldiers by alerting them of unseen threats. For example, a Global Hawk could survey a desert US forces need to trek through. The Global Hawk will take images of the land to help determine the easiest or safest way through. Regarding the enemy, one of the many benefits of videoing them is for US forces to follow their location and expose meeting places. When an enemy is located, pilots use the images the drone has taken of the building to identify where all the exits and entrances are. They can identify where they believe enemies will run if they strike the building. Then, if any of them escape the strike, they know where to target their next missile, or where to tell ground troops to find them.

In June 2017, MQ-1 Predator drone pilots were going through their normal work routine. They were gathering intelligence of the local area in Iraq when they noticed something alarming: an armoured vehicle with bulletproof windowing and tires was moving in the direction of friendly forces. The pilots relayed a message to the soldiers warning them of a possible VBIED (vehicle-borne improvised explosive device) so they could take action necessary to defend themselves. Based on the speed of the vehicle, the pilots knew the soldiers only had minutes to prepare. It was clear they needed to take action. It took one minute of planning from the pilots and a thirty-second missile flight from the drone to reach its target. A Hellfire missile was shot at the vehicle, and based on the size of the explosion, it was clear the vehicle was in fact a car bomb. If the drone pilots were a minute too late, an estimated 850 combatants and indigenous Iraqis would have been in danger from the car bomb (Vlogger). This is an example of how drones help protect our soldiers through imaging and video.

My third confirmation argument is drones limit the amount of civilian casualties because of their accuracy and technical precision. Accuracy and precision are important regarding civilian casualties in that if pilots are not meticulous in their targeting, they could strike the wrong place and kill the wrong people. Because drones are so accurate and precise, the military must be extremely careful in deciding who they target and must be competent in recognizing and avoiding potential collateral damage (Lacinkski, 4). A drone is a machine; it doesn’t know the difference between enemy and friend. Its actions depend solely upon the commands of its operator. That’s why drone pilots in all branches of the military go through rigorous training processes, to make sure they are fully capable of understanding and operating these powerful machines. Avoiding collateral damage is a critically important task for the military. Unnecessary collateral damage can cause increased political tension between countries, but more importantly, the United States has to deal with the moral implications of the innocent lives that were lost.

Over the course of the entirety of UAV strikes in Pakistan, the SCRT report estimates 400 noncombatants were killed along with 200 additional “probable noncombatants.” This figure represents 27 percent of all casualties. However, as the usage of UAVs evolved with improvements in intelligence, weapons, and stricter rules of engagement, civilian casualties were significantly reduced. In nine strikes conducted in Afghanistan thus far this year, an estimated one civilian has been killed relative to as many as 65 militants (1.5 percent of casualties). UAVs, though imperfect, continue to make improvements in reducing collateral damage (Lacinski 2).

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that since 2010, a minimum of 4,721 confirmed strikes has killed 7,275-10,586 people in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan, with only 737-1551 of those being civilians. Although any loss of civilian life is tragic, we must keep in mind the cost of war, and that drone strikes are a more discriminating weapon of war; meaning, they have the ability to surgically strike their targets, inflicting fewer civilian casualties.

The first counter argument to my thesis is airmen who work with drones have an emotional disconnect from war. This means they are desensitized to the horrors of war while they’re safe at home in the United States. This is false for two reasons: they still experience war and all the emotions that come with it even though they’re not on the ground, and high rates of PTSD among airmen and intelligence analysts prove operating drones causes emotional stress.

Over the course of a day, a drone pilot or intelligence analyst, someone who manages and evaluates information that drones provide, might monitor hours of typical activity; the “patterns of life.” A pattern of life is “ the specific set of behaviors and movements associated with a particular entity over a given period of time” (Biltgen and Ryan). Intelligence analysts and pilots study these patterns of life: people visiting friends, shopping in the marketplace or taking their kids to school. Because pilots and analysts are monitoring everything at all times of the day, they sometimes have to witness things much more gruesome than regular patterns of life. Col. Jason Brown, Wing Commander of the 480th Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Wing at Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia says that “They (airmen) are exposed to the most gruesome things that you can think about that could happen on a battlefield. They find mass graves; they witness executions.” Airmen have had to watch rape, mass executions, beheadings, people be skinned alive or tortured to death just to name a few. And it’s all in high definition (Sarah McCammon). You’re not disconnected in these types of scenarios, you are immersed. In many cases, when observing these types of horrible acts, airmen leverage kinetic capabilities of drones to deliver justice. Let’s consider an example to illustrate how engaged airmen involved with drone warfare are. When recalling a tough decision during a mission a few years back, Staff Sgt. Kimi of the 480th said, “To this day I still think about it, but it’s been a couple of years. I made the correct decision, but knowing that I could have made the wrong one, and a lot of people could have died because of a wrong decision — I just could not stop thinking about it” (Kimi). The thought of making wrong calls often haunts airmen, just like Staff Sgt. Kimi. Although these airmen are not physically in the places they’re fighting, they’re still engaged in the fight and they can still experience all the mental and emotional trauma a soldier on the ground can. Granted, it might not be on a level as personal, but anyone who thinks the airmen are completely disconnected from the actions they do does not have a full understanding of the emotional burdens that come with the job. In combat, forces on the ground are often in communication with drone pilots in the United States. The pilots inform them of which roads to take, or what direction the enemy is coming from. There are also times when soldiers are in the middle of a gunfight with militants and call in for air support. Col. Christopher Larson of the US Air Force states emotional disconnect is a myth. When you have soldiers on the ground in the middle of a firefight radio to you, screaming for air support, you understand the importance of what you’re doing. There are real people down there, depending on you (Larson). There are also times when drone pilots and analysts have to watch American soldiers die, whether it be from a gunshot or an IED or something of that nature. It’s a terrible thing to witness, and saying they’re all just emotionless killers playing a video game trivializes these traumatic incidents.

The second reason this counterargument is false is drone pilots have been found to have higher levels of stress, anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts than people with other Air Force support roles. A study published by the Department of Defense last year suggests drone pilots experience PTSD in a similar way to soldiers on the ground. This is largely due to the fact so much power lies in their hands. At the press of a button, they could wipe out an entire town or kill hundreds of civilians. A 2012 military medicine study reports 10.72% of operators experience high levels of distress and 1.57% of operators show high levels of PTSD symptomology. The nature of the job is also very confidential. It wears on pilots to be in combat at 5, then home for dinner at 5:30 and not being able to talk to their significant other or family. The emotional distress is often taken out on family (Jason Koebler). Long shifts also contribute to this. Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James addressed this issue during the State of the Air Force in 2015, saying,

I visited Creech Air Force Base and saw our remotely-piloted aircraft ISR mission firsthand. Of course, the chief has been there many, many times. The airmen who perform this essential mission do a phenomenal job, but talks with the RPA pilots and the sensor operators, and their leaders certainly told me —suggested to me, that this is a force that is under significant stress — significant stress from what is an unrelenting pace of operations. Now, these pilots, just to give you a little color on this, fly six days in a row. They are working 13, 14 hour days on average. And to give you a contrast, an average pilot in one of our manned Air Force aircraft flies between 200 and 300 hours per year. Again, these are averages. But in the RPA world, the pilots log four times that much, ranging from 900 to 1100 flight hours per year. And again, this is very stressful operations because mistakes can cost lives (“State of the Air Force”).

The combination of the long work hours, statistics of distress and PTSD, and the confidentiality of the job can be emotionally debilitating for pilots. If piloting drones was just like playing an emotionless video game, all of this evidence should not be present.

The second counterargument against my thesis is drones are unethical. They’re an unfair and inhumane form of warfare because their targets have no idea what is about to occur. This is false because the enemy has to realize that their actions make them targets. The fact that they don’t know when a strike will occur doesn’t change the ethics of the situation. It wouldn’t be more any more ethical if they knew exactly when and where a strike is going to happen. The very nature of their intentions to do harm gives them an indication that they are a target. We won’t sit idly by and let them carry out their evil plans. Their actions cannot go without consequences.

According to the Jus Ad Bellum section of the Just War Theory, a theory that the United States explicitly acknowledges in regards to waging war, for an act to be permissible, it must meet two requirements: discrimination and proportionality. Discrimination says only military targets and combatants can become targets. It is illegal for the military to attack innocent civilians. The military doesn’t go around dropping bombs on random people. Bad people get eliminated because they have shown characteristics of a terrorist, or are a confirmed terrorist. Proportionality says the military advantage gained from an attack cannot outweigh the civilian damage. Drones possess the technology to acquire information that allows operators to make distinctions between combatants and non combatants. Planners then leverage this information to minimize collateral damage while at the same time maximizing the military effect of the strike (Lacinski 4). So in effect, the use of drone technology, when applied against the backdrop of the Just War Theory, is an ethical use of technology to conduct war.

Many people get caught up in the collateral damage argument. While this is something to be taken very seriously, we need to realize that the force America is putting on terrorist organizations is necessary. Terrorists would not hesitate for one second to kill every single American. As I stated, the only people who are targeted in the first place are people who have proved to us they are worth such a serious death. Whether it’s a drone strike or a bullet from a soldier on the ground, these people have given us reason to eliminate them.

As Christians, this issue can be very difficult to comprehend and decide how we should feel about it. We are called to love our enemy, but loving our enemy doesn’t mean allowing them to do evil. In fact, it can mean just the opposite. The act of loving means helping and defending the people that they’re persecuting. The act of loving means protecting our country. C.S. Lewis says this when talking about war in his book, Mere Christianity:

I imagine somebody will say, ‘Well, if one is allowed to condemn the enemy’s acts, and punish him, and kill him, what difference is left between Christian morality and the ordinary view?’ All the difference in the world. Remember, we Christians think man lives forever. Therefore, what really matters is those little marks or twists on the central, inside part of the soul which are going to turn it, in the long run, into heavenly or a hellish creature. We may kill if necessary, but we must not hate and enjoy hating. We may punish if necessary, but we must not enjoy it. In other words, something inside us, the feeling of resentment, the feeling that wants to get one’s own back, must be simply killed. I do not mean that anyone can decide this moment that he will never feel it anymore. That is not how things happen. I mean that every time it bobs its head up, day after day, year after year, all our lives long, we must hit it on the head. It is hard work, but the attempt is not impossible. Even while we kill and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves — to wish that he were not bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good. That is what is meant in the Bible by loving him: wishing his good, not feeling fond of him nor saying he is nice when he is not.

Lewis’s words remind us we shouldn’t take pleasure in the destruction of our enemies. Our hearts should be saddened by the evil they do, and saddened by the fact that their evil has reached a point where it needs to be stopped. But defending America and people all over the world who cannot defend themselves is something that is necessary. It’s not something of which we need to be ashamed.

The men and women of the United States military have sworn an oath to protect this country each and every day. They fully understand the risks that come with this honor. They are willing to risk their lives to preserve our freedom and security. Consider this, Since September 11, 2001, thousands and thousands have paid the ultimate price (Department of Defense). Consider also these examples: The average age of servicemen and women in the military is twenty-nine years old. Of these, an average of sixty-one percent are married. As of 2015, in a study of the military community, the amount of family members far outnumber the number of active duty members. All of these active duty men and women deserve a chance to come home safe and sound. Their wives, husbands, children and parents deserve to hug them, kiss them and see them again. If they are so willing to sacrifice their lives for ours, should we not provide them with all the tools we can to help them return home safely? Drones are a tool to help accomplish this and so much more. The safety and security drones provide to service members are invaluable. Their safety is our safety. The intelligence drones collect give long lasting benefits to this country. It is our responsibility as United States citizens to be vigilant and informed on this issue, so we can help keep the military in check for their actions regarding drones. Their mission to fly, fight and win is something that deserves our full support.

Works Cited

“Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Operator.” U.S. Air Force — Career Detail, http://www.airforce.com/careers/detail/airborne-intelligence-surveillance-and-reconnaissance-isr-operator.

“Biplane.” Merriam-Webster , Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biplane.

Budanovic, Nikola. “The Early Days Of Drones – Unmanned Aircraft From World War One AndWorld War Two.” WAR HISTORY ONLINE , 21 July 2017, http://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-news/short-history-drones-part-1.html.

Biltgen, Patrick, and Stephen Ryan. Activity-Based Intelligence: Principles and Applications. Artech House Publishers, 2016.

Blain, Loz. “US Navy Tests Aerial Drones for Real-Time Mine Detection.” New Atlas — New Technology & Science News , New Atlas, 1 June 2017, newatlas.com/us-navy-mine-detection-drone/49849/.

Budanovic, Nikola. “The Early Days Of Drones – Unmanned Aircraft From World War One And World War Two.” WAR HISTORY ONLINE , 21 July 2017, http://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-news/short-history-drones-part-1.html.

Chappelle, Wayne L., et al. “Symptoms of Psychological Distress and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in United States Air Force ‘Drone’ Operators.” Military Medicine , Aug. 2014, web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=67c1c387-b197-4abe-998b-c6d7961e0c8c@sessionmgr102.

“Cruise Missile.” Merriam-Webster , Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cruise missile.

“Drones in the Abbottabad Documents.” Center for the Study of the Drone , 25 Mar. 2016, dronecenter.bard.edu/drones-in-the-abbottabad-documents/.

“Drone Warfare.” The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war.

“Global Hawk.” Northrop Grumman, http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/GlobalHawk/Pages/default.aspx.

“History of U.S. Drones.” Understanding Empire: Technology, Power, Politics , 23 Jan. 2017, understandingempire.wordpress.com/2-0-a-brief-history-of-u-s-drones/.

Just War Theory , oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/just_war_theory/criteria_intro.html.

Koebler, Jason. “The Curious, Stressful Life of a US Military Drone Pilot.” Motherboard , 18 Sept. 2014, motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bmjdxq/the-curious-stressful-life-of-a-us-military-drone-pilot.

Lacinski, Ensign. “Unmanned Ethics.” US Naval Institute Proceedings, Sept. 2015 usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2015-09/unmanned-ethics

Larson, Christopher. Personal Interview. 12 February 2018.

Lewis, C. F. M. Mere Christianity. Fount Paperbacks, 1977.

McCammon, Sarah. “The Warfare May Be Remote But The Trauma Is Real.” NPR , NPR, 24 Apr. 2017, http://www.npr.org/2017/04/24/525413427/for-drone-pilots-warfare-may-be-remote-but-the-trauma-is-real.

“MQ-9 Reaper.” Military.com , http://www.military.com/equipment/mq-9-reaper.

“Persistent Surveillance.” The Free Dictionary , Farlex, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/persistentsurveillance.

Rozenfeld, Monica. “Military Drones: From World War II to the Present.” Military Drones: From World War II to the Present — IEEE — The Institute, theinstitute.ieee.org/tech-history/technology-history/military-drones-from-world-war-ii-to-the-present.

“RQ-11B Raven.” Military.com , http://www.military.com/equipment/rq-11b-raven.

Sherman, Robert and Tom Weiner. “Drones Spare Troops, Have Powerful Impact.” Sandiegouniontribune.com , 7 Sept. 2016, http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sdut-drones-troops-impact-2014oct09-story.html.

Sifton, John. “A Brief History of Drones.” The Nation , 29 June 2015, http://www.thenation.com/article/brief-history-drones/.

Smith, Stew. “What Are The Iraq And Afghanistan Casualty Statistics?” The Balance, http://www.thebalance.com/the-cost-of-war-3356924.

“State of the Air Force Press Briefing by Secretary James and General W.” U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE , http://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/606995/.

Vlogger. “A Drone Strike That Saved Hundreds of Lives.” Military.com , Vlogger, 30 Jan. 2017, http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/improvised-weapons/a-drone-strike-thatsaved-hundreds-of-lives/5302970247001.

Whittle, Richard. “The Man Who Invented the Predator.” Air & Space Magazine , Air & Space Magazine, 31 Mar. 2013, http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/the-man-who-invented-the-predator-3970502/.

“World War One: How the German Zeppelin Wrought Terror.” BBC News , BBC, 4 Aug. 2014, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-27517166.