Arguments Against Drones

Drones are a better alternative to traditional methods of war because they kill less civilians, are legal under international law, and also that they do not create more terrorists than they kill. These facts will prove that older methods of war such as mortars, and bombs pale in comparison to the drone and the effect they have and will continue to have in the war on terror.

After the terror attack of September 11, the U.S. began using drones to help fight the war on “terrorist.” The use of drones has secured the safety of our country to a certain extent. People claim that drone strikes are useful weapons in war because it kills the enemy without putting soldiers in danger. According to the article “At Issue: Targeted Strikes” by Staff, P. states, “Proponents credit drone strikes with the killing of many of top commanders of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and argue that they are a legal form of self defense. ” The benefit of this is that U.S. soldiers do not have to step foot in unfriendly locations, where they will be exposing themselves to danger. The United States favors drone because “One advantage of drones is that they can be deployed for long periods

Efficiency in war comes with immunity, “Ideas about killing from ever greater distance, with ever increasing force and with ever more protection for those involved are as old as warfare itself (Shane Riza. Two-Dimensional).” Modern day remote drones are able to neutralize targets more efficiently than ever before, they can be used to find a specific target or targets are take them out from the sky with a single missile instead of several men and hundreds of bullets. Drones are controlled from bases typically in Nevada where the men and women controlling the drones can control the drone’s aim and movements my centimeters. Making them very accurate and precise when it comes to targeting specific individuals or groups. Drones are the cheapest sector of the government spendings in the United States. According the the analysts/writers of ProCon.org, the U.S. military’s drone program only makes up about one percent of the annual defense budget, approximately $5 billion. Compared to a single F-35 JSF (Joint Strike Force) program costs about $9.7 billion and costs anywhere from $18,000 to $169,000 an hour to operate, which is six-to-42 times more expensive. Even with all of the benefits and efficiencies to drones, they are still legal under international law and the laws of

In the article “Why Drones Work: The Case for Washington’s Weapon of Choice” by Daniel L. Byman many topics about the use and opinions of U.S. attack drones. U.S. attack drones are used in place of full raids or large bombings to take out terrorists. Most of the they the cost of an attack is greater than the drone itself. Many people have mixed feelings about the drones, but many people think that they cause many civilian casualties.

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

Drones are not always the best way to go, and are most of the time an unnecessary and non-profit endeavor. This is exemplified by the fact that from 2002 to 2014 only 2 percent of target fatalities by drones have been important militants ("Should the United"). The other 98 percent have been unimportant and unnecessary targets that were not a serious threat to the U.S. This means that the 98 percent that were unnecessary were just a extra waste of resources and did not make enough of a significant difference to justify the endeavor. Also, drone strikes are not effective because they have been proven to be inaccurate. Out of 114 drone strikes issued by the CIA in the countries of Pakistan and Afghanistan, 26 of the drone strikes targeted groups categorized as “other militants.” This means that the affiliation of the targeted groups could not be conclusively determined ("Should the United"). In conclusion, these strikes were with no special goal in mind, only executed to potentially harm terrorist groups. This in essence is another waste of resources which can have unknown consequences. In these types of drone strikes the U.S could be eliminating unimportant targets, or worse, they could inadvertently harm friendly factions or neutral civilians in the region of the strikes. This would again turn more individuals away from the U.S cause by building on the hate against the U.S that

Do you like the idea of being able to fly drones in order to target your enemies? Well, the government surely does. The U.S. government is starting to use pilotless drones instead of actual military pilots in order to collect data and fight against terrorist activity in the middle east. Some believe that drones will create more problems rather than help and some believe that drones will help reduce terrorist activity significantly

In the article “Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drones Strikes Abroad”, it contain information on both the reasons why and why we shouldn’t allow the use of military drones anymore. Drones or also known as a UAVs (Unmanned aerial vehicles) have been all over the news as of late because of the controversy about the use of them. Attack or military drones have been used as far back as the late 1840’s to carry out specific mission that may involve stealth over the enemy. Now that technology has improved engineers have found hundreds of ways to make stealth drones in different shapes and sizes. Some of the people who side with the drones say that “Drones have decimated terrorist networks abroad via precise strike with minimal civilian

military personnel, comparatively little financial expenses, and a minimum of civilian casualties. It is effective in the fight against international terrorism as it puts terrorist groups on defense. It forces these groups into hiding by targeting their safe havens. With the killing of key figures, the internal structure of these terrorist groups is attacked which not only shatters their sense of predominance in the region, but also compels them to find new ways of communicating and

Drones are the future for U.S. warfare whether you like it or not. As terrifying as this sounds, this is not necessarily a bad thing. The topic of drones being used in war has been fueled for quite some time now and is only raising more arguments with advancing technology. It is understandable why people are frightened by visualization of an army of drones flying overhead to go to war, but this should not be the case. Drones are the way for future military use and there should not be an argument against drones specifically.

Drones in warfare are used to target the suspect and take out the suspect without anybody knowing, but if these drones target the wrong person, then that ends up being inefficient. The drone strikes can target individuals why even may not be the suspect that they are looking for. On record, the drones kill large numbers of civilians and can traumatize the local population. According to a meta study, between 8 and 17% of all people killed in drone strikes are civilians.(source k) On another report, between 174 civilians and 1,047 civilians have been killed in pakistan, yemen, and somalia. According to 130 interviews with victims and witnesses of drone strikes by researchers from stanford and new york university, people who live in the affected areas experience harm beyond death and physical injury and report to hear drones 24/7 hours a day. (source k) According to clive stafford smith, director of human rights, says these people live in constant fear. The drones are flying 24/7, putting fear in the hearts of women and children, making people restless. Us americans have to put our feet into their shoes. If we were monitored by drones 24/7 and be scared if there would be a drone at anytime, we would call this an act of terrorism too. In the two sets of classified documents obtained by nbc news states that 114 drone strikes in

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

The fourth amendment protects individuals from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” This means that police must get a court warrant or have “probable cause” to invade one's privacy. But picture a police drone flying over your house, maybe you are doing the dishes or folding laundry but you hear and see this drone flying overhead, does that not constitute an “unreasonable search?” This definitely poses another concern for drone use, no one wants a drone, loudly, flying over their house. As Stanley states, “ We do not want the government hovering over our cities and towns 24/7 and tracking everywhere the everyone goes.” Says Jay Stanley of the American Civil Liberties Union. (source A) Stanley poses an excellent argument here, why would anyone want an invading drone scouring over and around their home and the places you go? Privacy is a huge reason for the unwanting of drones by innocent

To begin with, drones have now gained the ability to spy on us without our consent. Using a vast database full of many peoples’ faces, they can detect who you are (Stepanovich). Also, they can find out where you go at what time and exactly whom you interact with

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