On 7 November 2024, the NATO International Military Staff (IMS) Office of the Gender Advisor (GENAD) hosted a monthly Deep Dive session on Drones and Gender Perspectives. It explored the gendered dimensions of drone warfare, highlighting how integrating gender perspectives in operational planning enables commanders to make more informed decisions that recognise the full spectrum of impacts on combatants and civilians.
Subject matter expertise was provided by Dr Lindsay Clark, Lecturer in International Relations at the University of Sussex, Major Philippe from the French Air Force currently serving in SHAPE’s Joint Targeting Branch and Mr Ross McKenzie, former Royal Air Force Wing Commander and current Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Officer at NATO’s Defence Investment Division.
Dr. Clark opened the session by sharing her research on the gendered aspects of drone usage and associated discourses. Her research, informed by former US, British, and Australian drone crews, illustrates the implicit gender categorisation in conflict zones. Terms such as “military-aged males” are often used for potential combatants, while “women and children” are assumed to be civilians, influencing targeting decisions and increasing the risk of misidentifying threats. She highlighted that this ingrained assumption underscores a broader thought process affecting how entire campaigns are constructed and how civilian casualties are perceived.
Dr. Clark examined the gendered language around drone warfare, explaining that drone pilots and crews are often viewed differently than fighter pilots. For instance, references to a “PlayStation mentality” or the idea that drone warfare lacks the physical risks of traditional combat subtly diminish the heroism and dedication of drone operators. This language casts drone warfare as “less masculine” and trivialises the emotional toll on operators. Furthermore, she noted that female drone operators are often portrayed as emotionally unstable, a depiction not commonly attributed to their male counterparts. This gendered expectation not only affects perceptions but also impacts the mental health and retention of personnel, as they may feel less inclined to seek psychological support due to a fear of appearing weak.
Next, Maj. Philippe outlined the technical complexities of drone targeting, emphasising that the term “drone” is overly simplistic. These remotely piloted systems can operate at various altitudes and drop munitions similar to fighter aircraft. He outlined processes such as Positive Identification (PID), Rules of Engagement (ROE) and Collateral Damage Estimation (CDE), each designed to minimise harm to civilians. Four guiding principles – distinction, proportionality, military necessity and humanity – help assess whether a strike is justifiable. In this framework, “collateral damage” is considered legally permissible if it is not excessive in relation to military objectives.
Pattern-of-life analysis, a critical tool used by remotely piloted systems, examine a target’s environment and behaviours to prevent misinterpretations that might lead to unnecessary casualties. However, Maj. Philippe noted that the risk of civilian harm remains, especially when women and children are deliberately placed in harm’s way as a tactic of deception. Common factors leading to targeting errors include cultural misunderstandings, poor analysis, psychological biases and behaviour misinterpretation, making it essential to integrate diverse perspectives, including gender, in the decision-making process.
Major Philippe noted that targeting decisions are traditionally made by the Commander and Legal Advisor (LEGAD), but now often include input from a Political Advisor (POLAD) and Gender Advisor (GENAD). GENADs play an increasingly significant role in targeting boards, contributing insights that can help assess the broader effects of military actions on men, women, boys and girls. This expansion of viewpoints helps commanders consider potential secondary effects, such as the impact of disrupted water supplies or other basic resources on vulnerable groups.
Mr McKenzie challenged the media’s use of the term “drone” which he argued implies an autonomous robot, obscuring the fact that a team of humans is operating the system. He noted that the language choice can deflect accountability, as public perception often associates automation with impersonal, robotic decision-making rather than a crew’s calculated judgment. He instead suggested the use of terms like ‘Unmanned Aircraft System’ or ‘Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems’.
This human aspect introduces psychological challenges. Mr McKenzie highlighted that pilots and analysts often work long, intense shifts followed by an abrupt transition to their civilian lives at home, a pattern that can lead to emotional detachment. This lifestyle imposes a unique psychological toll.
Another area of concern Mr. McKenzie raised is the rise of ‘swarming’ technology, where multiple drones operate together autonomously. These true ‘swarms’ could change combat drastically, allowing for complex collaborative tactics. He suggested that while many Nations prioritise keeping humans “on the loop” in decision-making, the potential shift toward entirely autonomous combat poses ethical questions and gender considerations that should inform policy as technology evolves.
Looking ahead, NATO’s policy indicates that within a decade, human pilots may no longer fly fighter planes. As drone technology advances, so too must the ethical frameworks and societal perceptions that govern its use. The perspectives shared by Dr. Clark, Maj. Philippe, and Mr. McKenzie underscore the urgent need to examine the gendered dimensions of drone warfare. Integrating gender perspectives into both operational planning and public discourse can protect personnel and help them make more informed decisions that recognise the full spectrum of impacts on combatants and civilians.