Are Drones Bad

Even during testing, drones only hit within the expected region, 50% of the time, and in reality this percentage could be lowered by uncontrollable forces, such as weather (Chris Cole, 2014). Drones may have better accuracy and lower civilian kill rate than some other weapons, but that does not justify why drones are safe and should be used limitlessly. With people falsely persuaded that drones are “risk free”, the military is less likely to send lethal force, resulting in the United States dragging a longer and less aggressive warfare (Chris Cole, 2014)

Much controversy surrounds the use of drone strikes to mitigate terrorism. Many believe it is effective in eradicating terrorists, however the aftermath of the situation is quite contradictory. Drone strikes “kill women, children, they kill everybody. It’s a war,

Terrorism is extremely sensitive subject, and rightfully so. I believe the United States has attempted to help form some form of defense in order to combat the growing threat of terrorism. Although I agree something must be done, I tend to disagree with the strategy. Yet, I will admit I really do not know what I would do if I was in a leadership positions and was forced to make a decision or come up with a plan. One such problem was spoken about by the NPR, in the debate about the US Drone policy. In one manner, Drones provide a safe way for the killing of dangerous individuals without ever putting a US solider in danger. However, Critics are likely to point out these Drone Strike occasionally have civilian causalities. My point simply being

The US has conducted over four hundred drone strikes in Pakistan alone since. From these attacks, estimates state that between 700 and 900 civilians have died. This is almost one quarter of the total deaths from these strikes, and these people have died from no transgression. These people live in fear, earning small amounts of money, living small, innocent lives. However no life on our earth can be small enough to die for no good reason. Since 2004, there have been less than 50 recorded civilian deaths in the US that have been conducted by Islamic extremist groups, not just groups from Pakistan. These attacks do serve a purpose, however the cost of human life is too great. Those affected by drone attacks do not have the power to stop this. It’s down to me, it’s down to you and it’s down to us.

After 9/11, the U.S started to implement policies intended to combat terrorism in hopes of preventing further attacks and bring those who were involved to justice. One such policy that the U.S started was to implement the heavy use of drones- unmanned aircraft capable of bombing specific targets. These drones would be controlled by a pilot remotely from the U.S, thousands of miles from where the strikes were taking place. The U.S used these drones to assassinate suspects who were believed to have been linked to terrorism as well as various targets that were deemed to be associated with terrorism, such as weapons factories. Currently, however, there is a debate on the legality, morality, and effectiveness of drones. One side sees the drones as effective at destroying targets while at the same time, minimizing civilian casualties. On the other hand, the other side believes that drones are reliable for

The United States has been authorizing oversea drone airstrikes from quite some years now, if fact, the first strike occurred on Feb 4, 2002. The purpose and reasoning of these drones are to eliminate terrorist overseas, prevent terrorist attacks, and keep soldiers from physically hunting down terrorist in enemy territory. Two problems with the drones are how they potentially create more terrorist than they kill and how they have been brought into our own country on a much smaller and non-lethal scale. Gaining popularity, domestic drones threaten to break amendments or even pose a threat to the civilian population. On the other side, local law enforcement, companies, and even the government can receive huge benefits from having a drone in their

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a sixteen-years-old boy, was a third American killed by CIA drone strikes in Yemen while searching for his father, Anwar al-Awlaki, also an American citizen, who had been killed in a U.S. drone strike (Finn and Browning). Although drones kill not only terrorists but also innocent civilians including children like Abdulrahman, many drone strikes have been made to Pakistan between the year of 2004 and 2012. This is because the United States military successfully kills targeted enemies without losing a soldier by using drones. However, civilians living near the targeted area are killed by the drones as killer drones can’t accurately focus on the enemies. Therefore, the military’s

Certain polls suggest that the average American supports the use of drones for counterterrorism efforts. What the average American doesn’t know is since 2014 the U.S. led coalition in Syria and Iraq has conducted over 13,500 strikes in Iraq and Syria. Taking innocent lives and causing destruction in already weak countries. In 1996 the first unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), was born but it wasn’t a combat drone. In Obama's years as president, he dropped 563 strikes almost ten times that of how much Bush dropped in his years, the catch is the 563 from Obama were in nonactive battlefields. In active battlefields, we have performed over 20,000 strikes. Since there are no laws on drone use it makes it easy to commit what many believe to be war crimes. Drones may seem like a good solution to terrorism, but we need a structure of law for drones and those who use them.

Drones have been used in a way that is affecting innocent civilians at home and abroad. The negative use of drones under the Obama administration and the lack of accountability is evident as Professor David Cole states: “You can't get any of the political accountability, the legal accountability, the world accountability, until there is transparency.” (US catholic 1). What this says is that there is a big lack of transparency from people very high up in the military sector. The Government has been very unclear about what happens with a drone strike and instead just tells us that drone strikes are happening. The lack of detail and lack of acknowledgement for middle east civilians is a huge problem. Without the government and military being clear with us the news of several civilian deaths from drone strikes will continue to be a major issue. The problem lies with the fact that the government also does not fully acknowledge its own drone program

First the cost of drones are very minimal. Second drones are unmanned witch allows for there to be no immediate risk for US personnel. Third because drones have the ability to conduct surveillance missions following targets before striking, they eliminate collateral damage. On the contrary the explanations in the papers and other forms of written literature exempt in explaining why drone strikes have raised so much since the inauguration of president Obama in 2008. It is not that drones are not new technology; it is that we have just seen a rising increase in their use, this is a fact not brought up by modern explanations for why drone use is increasing. Therefor saying, traditional explanations for the increase in drone strikes fail to present a detailed disintegration of the nature of drone strikes targets as they have increased over

Drone operators can pilot drones over a certain target thousands of miles away. “Drones have several advantages over manned aircraft. Drones can aloft for several days. They can be equipped with video cameras and listening devices that can closely monitor what is happening on the ground.” (source A) Here, the advantages of using drones rather than manned aircraft are stated. Also using drones will lower the rate of pilots killed from backfire during war, this can also be a huge reason why drones will continue to be used in warfare, until a new tecky way of firing during war is made. Another reason why drones are useful during war is because of their preciseness. “ A drone strike can kill a person in one room of a house and spare the lives of people in other rooms. Their precision means there’s less of a chance of innocent civilians being killed. However, there have been cases of drone attacks killing civilians along with the intended target.” (source A) So yes, the precision of drones can be precise, but would we want to continue taking the chance of the drone also killing innocent

Opponents argue that by removing one of the key restraints to warfare – the risk to one’s own forces – unmanned systems make undertaking armed attacks too easy and will make war more likely. Evidence is beginning to emerge that it is the persistent presence of UAVs sitting over remote villages and towns simply looking for ‘targets of opportunity’ that may be leading to civilian casualties. The CIA oversees drone strikes as part of counterterrorism operations, but US officials refuse to discuss the program publicly. According to a tally by the nonpartisan New America Foundation, since 2004 there have been more than 260 US drone strikes in Pakistan, which the foundation estimates killed between 1,600 and 2,500 people. Not everyone feels comfortable with all this. Critics say that the legal and

The use of drone strikes makes people wonder if it is necessary and proportional to the threat. The principle of proportionality prohibits excessive force, taking consideration of both civilian and militant casualties of war. Even if a target is considered lawful under the IHL, the principle of proportionality still applies and any form of attack that is deemed to violate the principle of proportionality is subject to prohibition of the attack itself. The IHL have banned many weapons after WWII for causing more harm than necessary, such as explosive projectiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and cluster munitions. And this is only to name a few that have been banned by treaties like the Declaration of Saint Petersburg (1868), Geneva Protocol (1925), Convention on the Prohibition of Biological Weapons (1972), Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (1993), and Convention on Cluster Munitions (2008) to name a few. In the case of Drone warfare, drones itself are not dangerous or illegal, but the way they are being used by the US government raises many issues since civilians are becoming of target whether by accident or on purpose. Verification of the events in Pakistan confirms that militants are not defined strictly to terrorists, but any civilian can be classified as “militants” if they are dressed the same, or even in the same vicinity. Using signal

For example, three miles from the Afghan border in Pakistan, 13 militants from Punjab and 5 innocent civilians were killed in a residential compound by a missile from a drone in September 2008 (Khan). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism researched the drones impact on the Middle East, and “it estimated that about twenty-five hundred to thirty-six hundred people have been killed [since 2004 in just Pakistan], of which four hundred to nine hundred were civilians and about two hundred were children” (Gale). So many innocent live are being ended while trying to end a few. There are many other ways to find those certain few people without resorting to launching a weapon of mass destruction. The Army and Air Force could have a search drone locating only the specific people that are dangerous. Besides, drones are not always perfect and have serious electrical complications, despite common

Also, when the drones strike and kill half their populations there's also a lot of people who are now homeless because their homes have been destroyed and taken away from them. If we use drones in warfare just think how bad it will hit us back because again after killing innocent families over and over again some countries might come together and go to war with us because they're full of anger and hatred towards us. I just think that we shouldn’t use drones in warfare because article number three in source K says that some countries “ live with the fear that a strike could occur at any moment of the day or night” the families in these countries are terrified that they might get striked anytime of day because we think their