The new questions about transparency in drone use

It’s a war in the shadows, with public largely in the dark. Drones spy on and attack terrorists with no pilot in harm’s way.  Small teams of special operations troops quietly train and advise foreign forces. Viruses from computers strike silently. After decades of costly wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, the US and its allies are now set on changing the way nations waged wars. War is fought through proxies, and deniable actions, and in territories — both actual and notional — of dubious sovereignty.

Some human rights activists have dubbed drone attacks and the collateral damage they inflict criminal and demanded an international ban of weaponised drones. Despite the moral issues they have raised, the drones are getting cheaper, smaller and faster. Apart from the US, which owns around 7,000 drones, militaries across the world are working feverishly on developing and inducting drones. According to an international consulting firm, even if the US cuts back its drone purchases by a half by 2020, the global drones market will still reach $7 billion. While only the US, the UK and Israel have used drones so far, nearly 50 countries have them in service. India has developed its own surveillance drone, the Nishant, and will reportedly buy 95 more this year.

Security experts point out that the increasing deployment of drones makes military sense. They also make economic sense when the cost of training and maintaining a huge manpower is factored in. Pacifist objections apart, the increasing role of technology in modern warfare does raise new questions about the transparency and accountability of those who decide to unleash these weapons and choose the distant targets. They must be made to realise that there is always a political price to pay for misuse of such dehumanised weapons of destruction.