|  ElCiudadano.cl |  Noticias

El Ciudadano

Original article: No más drones asesinos: Reforma y prohibiciones para la industria

The technology that promised precision has ended up multiplying the risk to human life. It is time to establish ethical, legal, and technological limits to prevent drones from continuing to serve as instruments of death. Thus, the discussion surrounding Ending Killer Drones: Reform and Regulations for the Industry has never been more urgent.

By Bruno Sommer Catalán

For decades, humanity envisioned that technological advancements would decrease the suffering caused by wars. However, the mass proliferation of military drones in conflicts such as those in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Yemen, and other combat zones has revealed a different reality; technology has not eradicated human tragedy but transformed the manner in which it occurs.

Drones have democratized the capability to kill from a distance. With no honor in military operations, cowardice now lies behind remote controls. What once required costly military aviation systems can now be accomplished with relatively inexpensive devices, many built from commercially available components in the global market. From small drones modified to drop explosives to sophisticated autonomous systems guided by artificial intelligence, the outcome remains the same: humans turned into targets observed from a screen.

Images flowing daily from various conflicts move us to write this article. Wounded soldiers pursued by explosive drones. Civilians hit due to identification errors. Entire families trapped in zones where machines equipped with thermal cameras patrol the skies continuously. The physical distance between those operating the devices and those receiving the impacts has lowered the political and psychological costs of war, making its extension easier.

If current technology allows for the identification of vehicles, buildings, movements, and behavioral patterns with increasing precision, why not use it to protect human lives instead of taking them?

Artificial intelligence is already capable of recognizing faces, detecting human presence, distinguishing between animals and people, identifying population concentrations, and even analyzing complex behaviors in real time. In theory, a drone could incorporate mandatory protocols that prevent the activation of weapons when it detects humans within a certain radius. Just as automatic collision avoidance systems exist in cars, blocking systems could be developed to prevent direct attacks on people.

Some might argue that this would eliminate the military utility of these platforms. But that is precisely the debate that the international community must confront. If a weapon relies upon the ability to kill humans to justify its existence, then it begs the question of whether such a capacity should remain legally accepted in the 21st century.

An alternative would be to permit the use of drones exclusively to neutralize military infrastructure, logistics systems, communication equipment, arsenals, or strategic facilities, incorporating mandatory technological mechanisms aimed at avoiding human casualties. The priority should not be to perfect the capacity for destruction, but to minimize the human cost of conflicts.

This debate must also extend to the responsibility of companies involved in the production chain. Currently, thousands of components used in military drones originate from civilian manufacturers that sell motors, cameras, sensors, chips, and navigation systems without effective traceability mechanisms. Once these elements enter opaque supply chains, it becomes extremely difficult to determine their final destination.

Thus, an international certification and tracking system for critical components is required. Each part that can be used in armed drones should have verifiable traceability, similar to what exists for certain strategic materials or hazardous substances. Manufacturers would be obliged to know the final destination of their products and report suspicious operations.

Furthermore, the discussion should also address the legal and economic responsibilities of companies that, through negligence or deliberate actions, facilitate the construction of systems used to carry out attacks against civilian populations. When a drone causes a death, there exists not only a military or political responsibility; there is also an industrial and financial chain that made that outcome possible.

Among the leading global actors in the sector are DJI, the world leader in commercial drones; AeroVironment, manufacturers of military drones used by various armed forces; Baykar, creators of the well-known Bayraktar drones; General Atomics; Lockheed Martin; Northrop Grumman; Israel Aerospace Industries; and Elbit Systems, among others.

Alongside them is an extensive network of manufacturers of cameras, optical sensors, satellite navigation systems, microprocessors, batteries, motors, and artificial intelligence software that participate directly or indirectly in the global drone supply chain.

The magnitude of their technological influence also grants them ethical responsibility. Just as the automotive industry incorporated seat belts, airbags, and automatic braking systems to reduce deaths, drone companies could lead the development of mandatory human protection mechanisms. These include human recognition systems that automatically block direct attacks, multiple verification protocols before authorizing weapon use, and digital records that allow for the complete traceability of each operation.

History shows that humanity has been capable of imposing limits on certain weapons. Landmines, chemical weapons, and cluster munitions have been subjected to international treaties precisely because their effects were deemed incompatible with the basic principles of humanitarian law. Today, armed drones pose a similar challenge.

The problem is not the technology itself. Drones can save lives in rescue operations, environmental monitoring, firefighting, scientific research, or humanitarian aid. The issue arises when innovation is employed for the purpose of killing.

The international community needs to move towards a new generation of ethical standards for warfare, where the fundamental principle is clear: no machine should have the primary purpose of hunting and killing human beings. If technology can recognize a life, it must also be obligated to respect it.

We must be emphatic; true progress does not consist of building increasingly lethal drones, but developing systems that make it impossible for an individual to be turned into a target. Because when a society accepts that the automation of death is an inevitable price of technological advancement, it risks forgetting that every innovation should have a higher purpose, which is to protect human life, not destroy it.

By Bruno Sommer

Founder El Ciudadano

Join the Citizen Community

La entrada Ending Killer Drones: Reform and Regulations for the Industry se publicó primero en El Ciudadano.