This is the week the world seemingly woke up

to the U.S. government's drone wars. Drones have fired missiles on thousands of targets and flown countless flight hours over battlefields in the Middle East and northern Africa. But last week, the Obama administration's rationale for the legality of targeting U.S. citizens who are plotting with al-Qaida by means of airstrikes became public, and the administration used the argument to support the killing of U.S. citizen and al-Qaida member Anwar al-Awlaki with a drone strike in Yemen. Here's a primer on the current and future use of unmanned aerial vehicles in combat.

What are drones, anyway?

Technically, even the name drone is used in error. The military calls its flying robots unmanned aerial systems, while some holdouts use the old Pentagon name unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The term drone used to imply the lack of a pilot onboard. Most unmanned aircraft have pilots that fly them by remote control, often from bases in the United States, halfway around the world. For example, a three-man crew flies the unmanned MQ-9 Reaper, not including the maintenance and takeoff/recovery personnel.

Some of the craft's intelligent software allows the operators to set "hold modes" that designate orbits, altitudes, and speed limits. Still, drones can do some things on their own. A Reaper can autonomously auto-balance its draw of fuel from the wings to preserve its center of gravity, report mechanical failures during flights, follow waypoints, and automatically wheel over to a designated rally point if the satellite link to the ground station is lost.

Why Does the United States Love Unmanned Aircraft So Much?

Guerrilla wars in Iraq and Afghanistan changed everything: When facing insurgents who blend into a local population, good intelligence is worth more than the smartest bomb, so the need for constant overhead video is driving a UAV spending spree. In 2010 alone, the Defense Department spent $5.4 billion on unmanned-aircraft development, procurement, and operations—about $2.5 billion more than the military spent on UAVs during the entire 1990s. This boom is causing turf wars within the Pentagon. Military branches seldom develop weapons systems together, despite the potential savings of time and money if the branches share research costs and order hardware in bulk.

Why Does the CIA Have Its Own Fleet of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles?

The U.S. intelligence community has always appreciated aerial snooping, as witnessed by the Cold War-era U-2 and SR-71 programs. They were a great way to see what the Russians wanted kept hidden. These were expensive aircraft flown on high-risk missions, with the information given to senior government leaders doing big-picture evaluation.

Now compare that to the CIA's modern drone fleet. They can loft them without any plea to a military service and without risking a pilot. The aircraft gather data not only about tank and missile inventories, but also about people. This includes video footage and intercepted communications. Human intelligence has always been the CIA's bread and butter, and it's the hardest thing to collect.

But the CIA has also become more militarized. Its unmanned aircraft carry missiles, and the spy agency has not been shy about launching them into nations where Congress has not explicitly authorized war. The airstrikes in Pakistan that have generated civilian casualties—and international controversy—are CIA operations.

Are Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Made to Kill?

Air Force and CIA unmanned missions that launch missiles get most of the attention. But the demand for airstrikes is not high on the list of things that ground forces request from UAVs. Military UAV jocks say that 97 percent of the missions they fly provide intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) in support of convoys, raids, air assaults, and all manner of guerrilla-hunting. There are many ways for Army and Marine troops to kill insurgents, but finding the right ones, and clearing the way for a clean airstrike, can only be done with human intelligence on the ground (risky and manpower-intensive) or by observing from above for long stretches of time. Sensor operators speak of 4-hour, wrist-fatiguing stretches spent aiming a UAV's onboard infrared camera at a single vehicle in Afghanistan or Iraq. Spotting roadside bombs and identifying bomb-makers are other roles well-suited to a UAV's "persistent stare."

Why Does the Pentagon Want Smarter Drones that Fly Themselves?

Every time an airman is replaced by a machine, the Air Force saves money on healthcare, base upkeep, and recruitment. Despite flying with no humans onboard, current unmanned systems require as many, if not more, people to fly missions than piloted airplanes do. Even when a Reaper is on autopilot, it still takes three people back home to operate it: one to fly, another to operate the sensor ball in its nose, and a third to serve as military-intelligence liaison. Another pair of humans must deploy to the forward airfield to guide the UAV, using line-of-sight radio during takeoff and landing. By replacing these positions with automated functions, the cost of joystick operators could plummet.

Could UAVs Kill Without Human Permission?

In theory, yes. Here's how it would work: A UAV would open fire only after clearing a checklist of technical details—its preset rules of engagement—from its sensors. But drone-builders and military leaders are truly wary of allowing this kind of aggression without a human in the decision-making loop.

Such a system would be an heir to ones currently used in Patriot antiaircraft batteries and some antimissile weapons on Navy ships. But the legacy of the Patriot is mixed. During the second Gulf War, the system downed a pair of friendly airplanes, killing one American and two British pilots, after mistaking the planes for enemy missiles. Many military officials faulted an over-reliance on automation, but think-tank analysts noted that a lack of training caused the dependence and was the root cause of the tragedies.

Will the Battlefield Technology Trickle Back to the United States?

Yes. As we've seen in wildfires, hurricane hunting, and now the manhunt for Christopher Dorner, advanced drone sensors developed to fly over battlefields like Afghanistan are coming back to the U.S. as homeland security tools. How readily these will be adopted in the face of mistrust among the public and a presumed reduction in federal grants to local police (which is how police agencies typically can afford robots) is yet to be seen. But the FAA—at the behest of Congress—is working on rules to allow more UAVs into the national airspace.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io