Preserving pilot lives at altitude undermined accuracy and civilian protection

Evidence

The NATO planes carried out 38,004 raids in seventy-eight days without sustaining a single loss among the members of their crews. The Americans had indeed managed to invent warfare that inflicted zero deaths in their own camp. However, this did not rule out contradictions. For the very altitude that ensured that the lives of the pilots were not exposed also meant a potential loss of accuracy for the air strikes. NATO officials questioned on this matter by Amnesty International acknowledged this: “An aircrew flying at 15,000 feet would be able only to identify whether the objective was the intended one according to the planning preparations, but would be unable to tell whether, for example, civilians had moved within its vicinity. The 15,000-feet rule thus effectively made it impossible for NATO aircrews to respect the obligation to suspend an attack once circumstances had changed on the ground rendering the objective no longer legitimate.” — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 433 (#expands, via linked claim)

However, the faults are not solely technical. They are also politico-strategic. In 1999, two Chinese strategists suggested that the American preference for “zero dead” offered the United States’ adversaries a rapid, easy, and low-cost means of thwarting the world’s greatest power: “These common American soldiers who should be on the battlefield have now become the most costly security in war, like precious china bowls that people are afraid to break. All of the opponents who have engaged in battle with the American military have probably mastered the secret of success—if you have no way of defeating this force, you should kill its rank and file soldiers.” The dronization of the armed forces further radicalizes this strategic fault. If the military withdraws from the battlefield, enemy violence will turn against targets that are easier to reach. Even if the soldiers are beyond reach, civilians are not. As one American soldier explains, “We must understand that attempts to armorize our force against all potential enemy threats … shifts the ‘burden of risk’ from a casualty-averse military force onto the populace. In doing so, we have lifted the burden from our own shoulders and placed it squarely upon those who do not possess the material resources to bear it—the civilian populace.” The paradox is that hyperprotection of military personnel tends to compromise the traditional social division of danger, in which soldiers are at risk and civilians are protected. By maximizing the protection of military lives and making the inviolability of its “safe zone” the mark of its power, a state that uses drones tends to divert reprisals toward its own population. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 300 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: NATO prioritized pilot lives over the civilians the operation claimed to protect — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 434; Altitude-based flight regulations exist to shield wilderness from plane noise; Protecting pilots at altitude made it impossible to verify legitimate strike targets. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 433 (+2 more)

Related

• Protecting pilots at altitude made it impossible to verify legitimate strike targets. (similarity 0.90)
• NATO prioritized pilot lives over the civilians the operation claimed to protect (similarity 0.90)
• Hyperprotecting soldiers shifts the burden of risk onto civilians (similarity 0.86)
• Protecting national lives in war increases those lives’ social precariousness (similarity 0.84)
• Protecting national lives through drones increases their social precariousness. (similarity 0.81)
• Drone assassination reframes war as social defense through preventive security measures (similarity 0.79)
• Drones’ necroethics embody a nationalism of self-preservation (similarity 0.79)
• US ground forces in Afghanistan and Iraq also privileged soldier protection over civilians. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Protecting pilots at altitude made it impossible to verify legitimate strike targets. #expands (0.80) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 433
• Hyperprotecting soldiers shifts the burden of risk onto civilians #expands (0.75) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 300
• Altitude-based flight regulations exist to shield wilderness from plane noise #contradicts (0.60)
• Drones are morally justified by preventing one’s own casualties #contradicts (0.55)