Cómo funcionan los ataques con drones

Un piloto de la Fuerza Aérea de los Estados Unidos guía su avión a través de cielos oscuros sobre la región pakistaní de Waziristán. Sin embargo, no está en una cabina, ni siquiera cerca del Medio Oriente. Está sentado en una silla de escritorio a miles de kilómetros de distancia en la base de la Guardia Nacional Aérea Hancock Field en las afueras de Syracuse, Nueva York. Delante del piloto hay una serie de pantallas de computadora que muestran mapas, transmisiones de video e indicadores, que examina atentamente mientras manipula un joystick y el control del acelerador. Si bien esta configuración parece un paraíso para los jugadores, la tarea es mucho más sobria: matar de forma remota a presuntos militantes utilizando vehículos aéreos de combate no tripulados (UCAV), conocidos popularmente como drones .

El piloto observa cómo cinco hombres entran en una pequeña choza hecha de barro y ladrillos. Cuando el último cruza la puerta, el operador da la orden de disparar y, con solo presionar un botón, un misil guiado por láser cae del dron y atraviesa la noche.

Mientras tanto, en la cabaña, los hombres no saben que están siendo observados. Aún así, saben que los drones pueden atacar sin previo aviso, por lo que están un poco ansiosos mientras discuten un plan para bombardear los lugares de votación durante las elecciones en el vecino Afganistán. De repente, un silbido rompe el silencio de la tarde. Instintivamente, los hombres se lanzan en busca de refugio, pero sin éxito; el misil vuela el techo de la choza y rompe todas las ventanas. Los cinco hombres mueren por quemaduras, metralla voladora y la explosión aplastante del impacto.

Así es como se supone que funcionan los ataques con drones: los malos se identifican después de un seguimiento cuidadoso y se matan sin daños colaterales. Pero si miras mucho las noticias, sabes que no siempre es así. A veces, los civiles son golpeados por accidente, lo que enfurece a comunidades enteras y las vuelve contra Estados Unidos. Su gobierno, reaccionando a la protesta, promete oponerse al programa de drones. Pero sin los drones, ¿quién va a matar a los militantes? Claramente, este es un tema que plantea preguntas increíblemente complejas con pocas respuestas claras.

Entonces, ¿cómo llegamos a este punto? ¿Cuándo comenzaron los ataques con drones? ¿Quién los usa? ¿Cómo funcionan los drones? ¿Cómo eligen los objetivos? ¿Por qué la gente está tan molesta por los ataques con drones? Esas preguntas tienen respuestas, y las exploraremos en nuestra mirada en profundidad sobre cómo funcionan los ataques con drones.

1. Una historia de ataques con drones
2. El uso actual de los ataques con drones
3. Anatomía de un ataque con drones
4. Controversia del ataque con drones

Los militares han estado tratando de atacarse unos a otros con aviones no tripulados durante más de 150 años. Todo comenzó en julio de 1849 cuando el ejército austríaco, después de asediar Venecia, ató bombas a globos y los hizo flotar sobre la ciudad. Se suponía que un fusible cronometrado lanzaría la bomba sobre la Ciudad de los Canales, pero, irónicamente, los fuertes vientos volaron muchos de los globos más allá de la ciudad y sobre los campamentos austriacos en el otro lado [fuente: Overy ]. Tanto los ejércitos de la Unión como los confederados intentaron ataques similares durante la Guerra Civil Estadounidense, pero al igual que los austriacos, sus intentos generalmente estaban muy lejos del objetivo [fuente: Garamone ].

La invención de los hermanos Wright del vuelo pilotado y propulsado en 1903 empujó los experimentos con drones lejos de los globos y hacia los aviones. Los primeros prototipos, desarrollados por el ejército estadounidense durante la Primera Guerra Mundial, eran simplemente aviones modificados que podían programarse previamente para atacar objetivos enemigos. A pesar de cierto éxito limitado, estos primeros drones no se pudieron recuperar después de un ataque y las pruebas demostraron que eran demasiado poco confiables e imprecisos para el combate.

Poco después de la guerra, los avances en el control por radio permitieron que los aviones no tripulados fueran guiados en tiempo real, y el 15 de septiembre de 1924, un Curtiss F-5L de diseño estadounidense se convirtió en el primer avión en despegar, maniobrar y aterrizar por control remoto [ fuente: Keane y Carr ]. Una tecnología similar impulsó el Curtiss TG-2 pilotado a distancia de la Marina de los EE. UU., que realizó el primer ataque exitoso con torpedos remotos durante un ataque de prueba en abril de 1942 en un buque de guerra de práctica [fuente: Grossnick ].

Los drones se volvieron aún más efectivos durante la Guerra Fría. A principios de la década de 1960, Ryan Aeronautical Company desarrolló el Lightning Bug, un dron de reconocimiento que podía recuperarse en paracaídas. Más tarde, la empresa adaptó el diseño de una nueva arma conocida como BGM-34A. Durante un vuelo de prueba el 14 de diciembre de 1971, este dron se convirtió en el primero en atacar un objetivo con misiles guiados aire-tierra, ganándose su lugar en la historia como el primer UCAV moderno. Si bien los israelíes utilizaron con éxito el nuevo dron contra vehículos blindados egipcios y sitios de misiles durante la Guerra de Yom Kippur de 1973, nunca entró en acción en Vietnam porque los estadounidenses sintieron que no era tan bueno como la tecnología tripulada [fuente: Clark ].

Los militares continuaron usando drones a lo largo del siglo XX, pero en su mayoría estaban reservados para misiones de reconocimiento. Así es como el dron Predator comenzó en 1995, pero para el 16 de febrero de 2001, estaba equipado con misiles Hellfire, justo a tiempo para la respuesta de EE. UU. a los ataques terroristas del 11 de septiembre [fuente: Matthews ].

Nace el 'dron'

En 1936, la Marina de los EE. UU. puso al teniente comodoro. Delmar S. Fahrney a cargo de su Proyecto de Aeronave Controlada por Radio. En un informe más tarde ese año, se convirtió en la primera persona en denominar "drones" a los objetivos aéreos, un nombre que perdura en la actualidad [fuente: Keane y Carr ].

After the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the United States government and its citizens were largely united in their desire to retaliate. But the question was: Against whom? Enter the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed by Congress on Sept. 18, 2001. Basically, the law gave the president permission to go after whatever country, organization or person was responsible for the attacks so they couldn't do it again.

Initially, the president used the authorization to strike al-Qaida , the group that carried out the attacks, and the Taliban in Afghanistan, who harbored them. Since then, however, AUMF has been used to justify everything from the Guantanamo Bay detention center to — you guessed it — drone strikes against suspected terrorists [source: Currier].

The first armed drone mission was carried out in Afghanistan on Oct. 7, 2001, and drones have been used during traditional military operations in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan ever since. The more controversial strikes, however, have occurred in countries with which the United States isn't actually at war. These include Pakistan, which U.S. drones first hit in 2004, in addition to Yemen and Somalia, where strikes have been going on since 2011 (with the exception of one strike in Yemen in 2002) [source: Matthews].

Everything about drone strikes is a big secret. In fact, the Obama administration didn't even formally acknowledge the program until April 2012, and it rarely comments on specific strikes [source: Miller]. This secrecy makes it difficult to know for certain how many strikes there have been and how many people have been killed as a result.

The best data puts the number of strikes in Pakistan somewhere between 396 and 415, with 2,232 to 3,949 killed as of May 2015. Of these, somewhere between 262 and 962 were civilians [sources: New America, BIJ]. Yemen has experienced between 95 and 206 strikes, which killed between 65 and 158 civilians out of 447 to 1,117 total killed. Finally, nine to 13 strikes in Somalia killed a total of 40 to 105 people. It's estimated that up to five of those were civilians [source: BIJ].

Drones Everywhere

While many countries have drones, only a handful uses them for strikes. As of July 2012, 76 countries possessed some kind of drone, but only 11 had armed ones [source: Suebsaeng]. Of those, only two are using them in combat: the United States and, to a far lesser extent, the United Kingdom. Israel last used them in the Gaza War of late 2008 [source: Matthews].

The two armed drones in the U.S. arsenal are the ominously named Predator and Reaper drones. They actually look very similar, so it's not surprising that they share many characteristics. Both of these aerial weapons are propeller-driven, and both can be armed with laser-guided Hellfire missiles. Each is equipped with an antenna for communication with ground control during take-off and landing, while a satellite system is used to relay information when the drone is out of sight. This link goes both ways: The pilots can control the navigation, weapons and other systems on the drones, while the drones can send back information like images from its daytime and infrared cameras [sources: U.S. Air Force - Predator, U.S. Air Force - Reaper].

There are some significant differences, though. The Reaper is a bigger drone, boasting a wingspan of 66 feet (20.1 meters) versus the Predator's 55 feet (16.8 meters). With this size comes a number of advantages for the Reaper:

Of course, these advantages come at a cost: A drone unit — including four aircraft, a ground control station and a satellite link — costs $56.5 million for a Reaper versus $20 million for a Predator [sources: U.S. Air Force - Predator, U.S. Air Force - Reaper].

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and an arm of the military known as the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) are both responsible for directing these armed drones, which are stationed at a series of secret bases across Europe, Africa and Asia and often flown by pilots who are actually in the United States. Initially, these agencies maintained "kill lists" consisting of suspected terrorists they targeted with strikes after receiving permission from the White House.

In 2013, however, the White House became more involved, working to formalize the process through what they termed a disposition matrix. This updated list, created by the National Counterterrorism Center, includes information on suspected terrorists like biographies, locations, associations and affiliated organizations. The list also includes strategies for how to deal with the terrorists, such as extradition, capture and drone strikes. Numerous high-ranking intelligence analysts and military officials review the list before it receives the final OK from the president. In the end, the president must approve all drone strikes outside of Pakistan; the CIA director can approve strikes within Pakistan [source: Matthews].

Eye in the Sky

The United States uses the cameras on drones to observe suspected terrorists on the ground, sometimes for days or weeks before a strike is carried out. Often, operators know the name of the terrorist leader they're targeting, making the attack a personality strike. Occasionally, however, they don't know the person but decide to strike because behavior patterns suggest the target is up to no good. These anonymous attacks are called signature strikes [source: Currier].

In 2013 President Barack Obama gave a speech justifying the drone program using three main points. First, he argued that terrorists are bad people who will try to kill Americans unless someone stops them. Second, he pointed out that terrorists like to hide in places where local governments have little or no influence, so the United States has to respond instead. Finally, he suggested that drones are the best of many bad options. Traditional air strikes are less accurate and more likely to cause collateral damage. Using Special Operations puts more American lives in danger, and invasions, as we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, can be difficult to contain [source: Fisher].

Not everyone agrees with that assessment, though. One of the most common criticisms is drone strikes sometimes kill innocent civilians; indeed, the highest estimates place civilian deaths at 1,125 in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia as of May 2015 [sources: New America, BIJ]. In one such tragic instance in the Waziristan region of Pakistan in April 2015, a drone strike killed two hostages — one American and one Italian [source: Walsh]. The administration counters that while civilian deaths are regrettable, even more would die if the terrorists were allowed to live and carry out their attacks, not just in the United States, but also in the very communities where the drone strikes happen.

The other main criticism involves the legality of the strikes under both U.S. and international law. As we mentioned earlier, the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) gave the president the authority to attack those responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But 15 years later, with Osama bin Laden dead and al-Qaida on the run, many question whether the terrorists now killed by drones can really be linked to those original attacks. The administration justifies today's strikes by interpreting the AUMF to include "associated forces," though that phrase doesn't actually appear in the resolution. Perhaps most concerning to critics is that the Obama administration includes U.S. citizens in this group, meaning they can be killed without a trial. That's what happed to New Mexico native Anwar al-Awlaki — and his son, Colorado-born Abdulrahman — in Yemen in 2009 [sources: Global Justice Clinic, Currier].

Finally, numerous questions have come from the international community, including United Nations officials, who argue that drone attacks run afoul of international law. They contend that these rules prohibit killings in areas not recognized as being in an armed conflict. In response, the Obama administration has argued that the strikes are legal because they're carried out in self-defense [source: Bowcott].

The Future of Drone Strikes

Although the number of drone strikes has declined each year in Pakistan and Yemen from a high in 2010 and 2012, respectively, the United States has not set a date for the end of the drone program. So the question remains, as one senior military official put it: "How long can we continue to chase offshoots of offshoots around the world?" [sources: New America, Klaidman]

Author's Note: How Drone Strikes Work

If there's one issue that demonstrates the complexity of the world's problems, it's drone strikes. Imagine for a minute that you're the one responsible for approving an attack on a suspected terrorist. Killing him could mean you save innocent lives. But it could also mean you take a few, too. Could you do it? No matter what side of this issue you're on, there's not an easy answer. That's what struck me while writing this article: Drone strikes really are just one of many bad options.

Related Articles

More Great Links