In the modern world, warfare has undergone a profound transformation, both in form and in concept. In particular, drone technology has deeply shaken the ethical and political dimensions of classical warfare. Traditional understandings of war, state-centered, symmetrical, and defined by borders, have been seriously questioned since the second half of the 20th century. Identifiable actors have increasingly been replaced by anonymous armed structures, technology-based methods of killing, and progressively more lawless practices of violence. Today, rather than defined borders, frontlines, or declared enemies, there exists a constant state of violence across dispersed geographies. Drones, originally meaning “male bees that do not produce honey” and later evolving into “unmanned aerial vehicles controlled remotely”, are not only aerial tools; they are devices that operate in land, sea, and even underground systems, redefining the distance between human and machine. These devices have triggered profound transformations in the spatial, temporal, and ethical dimensions of warfare.
This text will examine how drone technology has upended the traditional structure of warfare, how it has transformed its ethical and political meaning, and how it has shaped the new paradigm of modern conflict.
The word drone originally means “a male bee that does not produce honey”. It also denotes a monotonous, buzzing sound. In the Middle Ages, the word took on a figurative meaning such as “idler” or “lazy worker.” With the outbreak of World War II, it acquired the meaning most commonly used today: “an unmanned aerial vehicle controlled remotely.” In the training programs of American military units, small remote-controlled aircraft were referred to as target drones. The term not only alludes to the size of these devices or the monotonous sound produced by their engines, but also draws on the image of the “useless male bee.” Male bees are stingless. Their inevitable fate is to be killed by other bees. In classical tradition, these creatures were seen as symbols of everything false, unnecessary, and artificial. The term target drone fits this symbolism precisely: artificial targets created to be struck.
Drones are not merely “unmanned aerial vehicles”; they are devices that also operate on land, at sea, and even within underground systems, redefining the distance between human and machine. These devices have led to profound transformations in the spatial, temporal, and ethical dimensions of warfare.
As Grégoire Chamayou notes in his book Theory of the Drone, the historical trajectory of drone technology is intertwined not only with military developments but also with cultural and symbolic narratives. One example he provides is particularly striking:
“For instance, a young woman once known as Norma Jeane Dougherty was just an ordinary factory worker when she posed with a drone propeller in hand. However, during a photo shoot at the Radioplane Company, she was discovered and would later become the iconic figure Marilyn Monroe. This event symbolizes that, in a sense, the birth of the drone took place on the Hollywood stage—and thus within an atmosphere of spectacle, artifice and fiction.” [2]
Warfare conducted through drones has upended the logic of traditional combat. Instead of mutual confrontation, we now see acts of destruction that are risk-free, casualty-free and devoid even of the character of a duel. Drones have eliminated the traditional structure of “encounter” in warfare. The target is no longer an “enemy” but has become a mere “target object”. The enemy, as a subject, has vanished, transformed into expendable material.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, in his Phenomenology of Spirit, writes: “Weapons are nothing other than the essential being of the combatants.” [3] This statement expresses that the warrior’s ethical and existential identity is inseparable from the weapon they wield. In this sense, war is not merely a technical conflict, but a realm of recognition in which the subject reveals their intent and courage through their weapon. However, the dominance of drones on the battlefield has suspended the Hegelian principles of “reciprocity” and “risk” that lie at the core of this framework. Drone technology removes the warrior from immediate danger and eliminates the possibility of direct confrontation. Consequently, the warrior can no longer identify with the weapon they use or establish an ethical connection with the consequences of their actions. The process of mutual self-recognition that Hegel describes becomes inoperative. The weapon is no longer the essence of the warrior; subjectivity gives way to technical operation. In this sense, drone warfare transforms not only the practice of war but also its ethical and political meaning. In Hegelian terms, the warrior no longer exists, replaced instead by a remote, risk-free, and automated agent. Violence becomes not an existential ordeal but a remotely controlled procedure.
In drone warfare, pilots are not present on the battlefield; instead, they operate remotely from a control panel. This practice reduces the experience of war to a simulation, almost like a video game. Grégoire Chamayou sees this development as a complete departure from Carl von Clausewitz’s conception of war as “a mutual struggle between two wills.” According to Clausewitz, war is “nothing but a large-scale duel.” [4] War is a ritual governed by rules, a form of politics carried out by other means. Yet today, the situation is markedly different. Drone warfare no longer resembles a contest between two opponents striving for dominance; rather, it resembles a predator tracking down prey that is fleeing or hiding:
“As Crawford puts it, in a traditional confrontation where two combatants face each other, both sides must fight for victory. But in a tracking scenario, the equation shifts: the pursuer wins by catching the target; the target wins by managing to escape.” [5]
In war, the enemy is not an absolute criminal who must be annihilated, but a counterpart whose rights must be recognized, an equal party to the conflict. Within this framework, it must be acknowledged that the enemy holds the same rights in combat. However, drone warfare fundamentally disrupts this balance, pushing asymmetry to its extreme. The enemy, once positioned as a legitimate adversary, is now branded as a criminal and devalued. In doing so, “the form of warfare conducted through drones entirely abolishes the principle of reciprocity and the ritualized structure of bilateral combat that underpins the very notion of war.” [6]
This asymmetric balance of power not only targets the enemy but also renders the legal and political boundaries of war increasingly ambiguous. De-identified targets are pushed beyond the realm of moral consideration. According to Chamayou, this situation does not merely transform warfare, it also contributes to the shrinking of the liberal state’s sphere of responsibility.
Drone warfare emerges as a product of a new paradigm, one that displaces traditional military practices, blurs ethical boundaries, and hands over war to technocracy. The lines of responsibility among figures such as the pilot, the general, or the political decision-maker become increasingly obscure. Identifying the perpetrator of a war crime becomes nearly impossible.
- Ertan Kardeş refers to this new condition as the “post-heroic age”. [7] Heroism has been replaced by technical proficiency; the battlefield has been replaced by data on a screen. The drone does not merely eliminate the warrior, it installs an “eye” in their place. This eye sees, but is not seen. Like Panoptes in Greek mythology, it is an all-seeing presence. It is a modern variation of the Panopticon envisioned by British philosopher Jeremy Bentham as a mechanism of power and surveillance. The word Panopticon is derived from pan (all) and opticon (to observe), meaning “to observe everything”. The drone’s eye sees everything. It acknowledges no rules or limits. It is irregular, lawless, nomos-less. It is detached from space, it is everywhere. In this way, it becomes even more dangerous than the most lethal predator. It kills the enemy with a single click.
At its root, hunting has nothing to do with senseless or thoughtless killing. It, too, is subject to strict and definitive rules of the game. Rituals are performed before, during, and after the hunt. A sense of reciprocity and symmetry is preserved between the hunter and the animal. The animal must only be killed in direct confrontation, never in its sleep. For this reason, the hunter waits for the animal to awaken. Moreover, only certain parts of the body may be targeted. For example, one should not aim directly at the animal’s eyes, so that it may maintain its gaze until the very end. Even in the hunt, a dual relationship is preserved. [8]
Drone warfare eliminates the ethical position of the warrior grounded in sacrifice, and simultaneously removes the human body from the center of war. In this new reality, the political character of war disappears altogether. The soldier is no longer a participant in conflict but rather a spectator or technical executor. What is expected of them is not sacrifice, but performance and success. And success, at the end of the day, is measured by the number of enemies eliminated. The enemy is no longer a human being, but a piece of data, a datapoint.
In summary, drone warfare radically transforms the logic of traditional war, shifting the focus from reciprocal combat to acts of elimination that are risk-free, bloodless, and devoid of any dueling character. This development erases the very possibility of the warrior’s existence in the Hegelian sense, replacing them with a remote, risk-free, automated agent. Violence ceases to be an existential ordeal and instead becomes a remote-controlled procedure. The form of warfare conducted through drones abolishes entirely the principle of reciprocity and the ritualized structure of bilateral struggle upon which war is founded.
In conclusion, drone warfare, through what Chamayou calls a “factory of irresponsibility”, removes war from the realm of human beings and transfers it into the world of machines. Drones create a system that is exempt from ethical responsibility, dragging global politics toward a rupture point defined by power and control.
Footnotes
[1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/drone (Accessed: 25.06.2025)
[2] Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, Trans. Janet Lloyd, New York: The New Press, 2013, p. 26.
[3] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, Trans. A. V. Miller, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977, p. 230.
[4] Carl von Clausewitz, On War, Trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984, p. 75.
[5] Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, pp. 33–34.
[6] Byung-Chul Han, The Disappearance of Rituals, Trans. Çağlar Tanyeri, Istanbul: İnka Kitap, 2022, p. 83.
[7] M. Ertan Kardeş, “War in the Digital Age: The Example of Drones”, Etkileşim, October 2018, pp. 96–106.
[8] Byung-Chul Han, The Disappearance of Rituals, p. 84.
