Attacks In Warfare : A New Era Of Warfare

In Bradley Strawser’s “Moral Predators,” Strawser argues that “we are obligated to employ uninhabited aerial vehicles (UAVs) weapon systems if it can be shown that their use does not significantly reduce a warfighter’s operational capability.” By their very nature UAVs evoke many ethical questions most of which are addressed by Strawser, who stresses “there is no downside to UAVs.” I would argue there are certainly some downsides to this technology. The aim of this paper is to provide legitimate moral objections to using drones in warfare.

To develop the Department of Defense’s (DoD) position on the reevaluation of the operation and regulations regarding drone warfare. This paper addresses the importance of understanding the risks involved with drone strikes, to include the important violations of international law, the consequential casualties incurred during the strikes and the overall moral issues at hand.

The main unknown and controversial discussion surrounding drone attacks is the ambiguity that coincides with who is made victim by these strikes. One of the main purposes of the military is distinguishing between combatants and innocent bystanders and as drone

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

In discussions of military drones, one controversial issue has been whether drone are an efficient way to undertake military actions. In 2013, “sixty-eight percent of Americans” believed drones were an efficient way of counter-terrorism (Fuller). Sadly, this majority of Americans are morally wrong due to the fact that drones are inaccurate and an inefficient way of counter-terrorism.

Opponents of drones argue that more civilians are killed by drones than the intended militants the drones target. They believe that the military carelessly authorizes strikes on anyone who may or may not be affiliated with terrorist groups. The government has been reluctant to release information about civilian casualties but this is mainly because it is classified information; the CIA operates under different restrictions regarding releasing information so the U.S. military has no control over what the CIA releases to the public.

Are military drones really necessary to fight terrorism? Is it the only way to resolve this issue? Drone technology appears to be increasingly popular as the need of “self-protection” against terrorists becomes more urgent. It is fair to conclude that drones are somewhat efficient. However, plentiful of instances and studies have proved otherwise. The usage of military drones promotes terrorism, violates international laws, and invades privacy. They are harmful rather than useful to our society.

The precision of drone strikes reduces the risk of death and damage not just for the US Armed Forces but also for innocent civilians in areas occupied

Imagine living with fear on a day to day basis with the expectation of a missile having the capability of obliterating where you’re standing right now by a single man on a computer in a matter of seconds without the slightest warning. The use of drone strikes in military operations is unacceptable. Accidental aftermath and the murder of innocent lives outweigh the desire to kill a few radical terrorists which can be achieved with ground soldiers lessening the amount of innocent bystanders killed in the process. To the stop this recklessness it is necessary that all drone strikes are ceased until suitable policies are implemented. Although drone strikes play a key role in fighting the war against terrorism the fact that military is striking fear into the hearts of the natives affecting their day to day lives in a negative way in reality makes us the actual terrorists.

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

Since the use of drones has been used on a much larger scale in the United States military, there has been some skepticism regarding the ethical implication of such machines in recent years (Source H). While 62% of Americans approve of the use of drone strikes other countries are in strong opposition of the handling of drones, such as China and Japan. However recent statistics have shown that drones execute fewer civilians than any other military weapon to date. Not only are they cheaper than traditional aircraft, but they also significantly decrease the risk of soldiers developing PTSD over the course of their service. (Source J).

“If we continue to develop our technology without wisdom or prudence, our servant may prove to be our executioner.” Theses dark and foreboding words from U.S. Army General Omar Bradley serve as solemn reminder of the impact that modern technology has had on war and how we wage it. But Bradley was referring to the controversy revolving around nuclear weapons in the nineteen-fifties. In world of today; however, the controversy lies in the use of drones. These remotely controlled planes can be used to spy and, most questionably, to kill. Some argue that these drones save American lives by separating the soldier from the battlefield. Others say that this separation will lead to an unrealistic view of war and its consequences. Regardless of how they shape the world, new technologies like the drone will continue to mold the concept of war in the modern era.

The U.S. government has received a lot of condemnation from individuals, local and international community on its use of drone strikes as a mode of fighting terrorism. A lot of questions have cropped up on the effectiveness of the drone strikes, and the fact they’re going against the international human rights and laws-of-war. Despite the advantages associated with the use of the program, investigations from different studies have revealed the demerits outweigh the merits of the use of the program.

However the main argument on the other hand is built on the legality of drone attacks. Critiques have questioned the compatibility of the US drone policy in fighting terrorism pointing out the issue concerning just war theories (Jus in bello) and jus ad bellum (conduct in war). For instance, critics of this policy question the legality and justification of these attacks in states which United States is not directly at war with such as Pakistan, Yemen (Ohlin, 2012, O’Connell, 2011 Sarah E Kreps,

Imagine a world where peace is real and not a dream, well for Mohammed, a teenager that lost his brother and his father by an American drone. Mohammed’s brother and father were herding camels until a drone strike hit them, ending their lives. Unfortunately, the tragic news doesn’t end with Mohammed’s dead family (Greenwald). Using drones to keep public safety is important and saving soldiers’ lives as well. Even though it saves soldier’s lives, it is a danger to the public because it violates international law and it has killed innocent lives.