American Strategic Myopia Toward Unmanned Aerial Systems

88 Pages·2014·1.08 MB·English

Author(s) Cabello, Carlos S.
Title Droning on: American strategic myopia toward unmanned aerial systems
Publisher Monterey, California: Naval Postgraduate School
Issue Date 2013-12
URL http://hdl.handle.net/10945/38890
This document was downloaded on July 28, 2014 at 08:11:34
NAVAL
POSTGRADUATE

SCHOOL

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

THESIS

DRONING ON: AMERICAN STRATEGIC MYOPIA
TOWARD UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS

by

Carlos S. Cabello

December 2013

Thesis Advisor: Bradley Jay Strawser
Second Reader: Robert O’Connell

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA
22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
December 2013 Master’s Thesis
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS
DRONING ON: AMERICAN STRATEGIC MYOPIA TOWARD UNMANNED
AERIAL SYSTEMS
6. AUTHOR(S) Carlos S. Cabello
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
Naval Postgraduate School REPORT NUMBER
Monterey, CA 93943-5000
9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
N/A AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy
or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. government. IRB protocol number ____N/A____.
12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited A
13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words)
Throughout the past decade of wars, the U.S. has deployed unmanned aerial systems, commonly referred to as drones, from Africa
to Asia collecting intelligence and targeting adversaries. The nation now stands at a crossroad seeking to develop future American
drone policy against an evolving threat while at the same time shaping global norms. The past decade of American drone use
focused on short-term benefits, intelligence collection and lethal targeting, rather than on the long-term consequences of
technology diffusion, or ethical and legal frameworks. Myopic drone strategies threaten to establish a global precedent that could
undermine the stability of international relations, as state and non-state actors (SANSA) have begun to build, arm, and operate
lethal unmanned systems at an alarming rate. Unmanned technology development and usage is outpacing international norms,
regulations, and policies. These systems will usher in an era of unrestricted drone usage unless international regulations and
standards are developed.
This thesis examines whether American drone strategy is myopic and whether it is creating a dangerous international
precedent. A qualitative analysis will identify the short-term benefits and long-term consequences of U.S. drone strategy, focusing
on unmanned technology diffusion, ethical justifications, and legal frameworks. Examining American drone strategy can help
explain why a myopic policy may be beneficial in the short-term, yet may increase threats to national interests in the long-term.
The thesis concludes with an assessment of whether strategic myopia has already set a dangerous international precedent, which
SANSA will use to justify their future drone programs.

14. SUBJECT TERMS Drones, remote, unmanned, myopia, diffusion, ethical, legal 15. NUMBER OF
PAGES
87
16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION OF
CLASSIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF THIS CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT
REPORT PAGE ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UU
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18
i
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
i i
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

DRONING ON: AMERICAN STRATEGIC MYOPIA TOWARD UNMANNED
AERIAL SYSTEMS

Carlos S. Cabello
Chief Warrant Officer 4, United States Army
B.A., American Military University, 2010

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN DEFENSE ANALYSIS

From the

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
December 2013

Author: Carlos S. Cabello

Approved by: Bradley Jay Strawser
Thesis Advisor

Robert O’Connell
Second Reader

John Arquilla
Chair, Department of Defense Analysis
ii i
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

iv
ABSTRACT
Throughout the past decade of wars, the U.S. has deployed unmanned aerial systems,
commonly referred to as drones, from Africa to Asia collecting intelligence and targeting
adversaries. The nation now stands at a crossroad seeking to develop future American
drone policy against an evolving threat while at the same time shaping global norms. The
past decade of American drone use focused on short-term benefits, intelligence collection
and lethal targeting, rather than on the long-term consequences of technology diffusion,
or ethical and legal frameworks. Myopic drone strategies threaten to establish a global
precedent that could undermine the stability of international relations, as state and non-
state actors (SANSA) have begun to build, arm, and operate lethal unmanned systems at
an alarming rate. Unmanned technology development and usage is outpacing
international norms, regulations, and policies. These systems will usher in an era of
unrestricted drone usage unless international regulations and standards are developed.
This thesis examines whether American drone strategy is myopic and whether it is
creating a dangerous international precedent. A qualitative analysis will identify the
short-term benefits and long-term consequences of U.S. drone strategy, focusing on
unmanned technology diffusion, ethical justifications, and legal frameworks. Examining
American drone strategy can help explain why a myopic policy may be beneficial in the
short-term, yet may increase threats to national interests in the long-term. The thesis
concludes with an assessment of whether strategic myopia has already set a dangerous
international precedent, which SANSA will use to justify their future drone programs.

v
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
v i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1
A. BACKGROUND OF STUDY .........................................................................1
B. SIGNIFICANE OF THE STUDY ..................................................................7
C. ASSUMPTIONS .............................................................................................11
D. DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS ..................................................................14
E. ORGANIZATION OF RESEARCH ...........................................................15
II. DIFFUSION MYOPIA ..............................................................................................19
A. TECHNOLOGY OUTPACING REGULATION .......................................19
B. SHORT-TERM BENEFITS .........................................................................22
1. Money ..................................................................................................22
2. National Security ................................................................................24
3. Innovation ...........................................................................................26
C. LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES ..............................................................27
1. Adversarial Acquisition .....................................................................27
a. State Actors ..............................................................................28
b. Non-State Actors .....................................................................29
2. Lower Aggression Threshold ............................................................32
3. Drone Counter-Measures ..................................................................33
III. ETHICAL AND LEGAL MYOPIA .........................................................................39
A. OPERATIONS OUTPACING POLICY .....................................................39
B. SHORT-TERM BENEFITS .........................................................................42
1. Self-defense .........................................................................................42
2. Lethal Operations ..............................................................................43
C. LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES ..............................................................48
1. Adversarial Justification ...................................................................48
2. Blow Back ...........................................................................................50
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION .....................................................55
A. RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................55
B. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................57
LIST OF REFERENCES ......................................................................................................59
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST .........................................................................................69

vi i