Benefits And Effectiveness Of Drones In The Military

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)

Top counterterrorist advisors from both the Bush and Obama administrations champion drone use as the most effective tool in the war on terror. They are relatively cheap, effective at killing terrorist with minimal civilian casualties. They protect US troops by preventing “boots on the ground” scenarios and ultimately make America safer. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is quoted as say, “the only game in town in terms of trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership” An important question to ask is: Are these short term advantages worth the long term repercussions. Michael J Boyle examines this question in, “The Cost and Consequences of Drone Warfare.” He first question the validity of the claim that drones are effective at killing

Picture your dearest family member out in the battlefield, struggling for dear life. Only being supported by a jug of water and a rifle until a drone appears with medical supplies or reinforcements. Every year technology advances at an increasingly hypersonic pace. The world has gone from the use of bulky telephones to six-inch touch screens. Soon the world will come from using innocent lives to fight for our country to the use of drones in warfare. Thousands of lives each year are cast away in order to protect our country. Drones could be the answer to finding terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen and stop them before they attack. The United States should continue the use of drones in warfare.

There are several debates and arguments going on during this time in the government and in people's conversations. One of them is whether drones should be used in the military or not. Furthermore, everyone is looking for a solution that would benefit all and make the world a safer place to live without fear. Moreover, what is the correct answer, it isn't an easy test that you can study and know the correct answer, this is a serious question with no correct answer. How would it affect the people surrounding the target, their family, and would this be the solution that we have all been looking for for so long?

Though military personnel lives are safer with the presence of drones, many who oppose military drones claim that they have increased the death of civilians and do not create safer environments for civilians (Terrill 22). However, drones have been proved to decrease the deaths of civilians due to the technology that allows them to pinpoint their target and strike at that specific target rather than bomb an area that the target is in. For example, in Yemen where many drone strikes have occurred, “civilian death figures… are ‘in the single digits’” (Terrill 22). Drones are claimed to have less collateral damage than the collateral damage caused by manned aerial vehicles. “They strike quickly, and the missile can be diverted from its original target in an unintentional miss” (Hazelton 30). In the drone strikes in Yemen, even President Hadi admits that there are accidental civilian deaths (Terrill 22). But whether ground troops are used, whether manned aerial vehicles are used, or whether drones are used, there will always be a possibility for collateral damage and civilian deaths. However, President Hadi also admits that “Yemen’s air force cannot bomb accurately at night, but US drones do not have any problems doing so” (Terrill 22).

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.

Just imagine seeing those military drones fly over your house, and you see an explosion over in the field within walking distance of the house and hear the words, "Run! Get out of this town." That was a drone. The question is, "Are drones good or bad?" Although military drones give information about the enemy, they kill innocent lives, they are an invasion of privacy, and drone pilots could have a mental breakdown because of all the people dying in front of them.To begin, drones will kill more than the intended target 85% of the time. Predator drones are mostly known for anti-terrorist attacks. We disregard the paperwork that has to be done before a lethal attack. "Drones kill innocent lives" (PBS.org). When drones kill, they also will kill

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

Using drones is a very touchy subject, and there are many arguments about it. These drone strikes do not only complete their mission but also keep american soldiers out of harm's way. Drones have been used for years but just in 2015 there was 13 CIA drone strikes in pakistan. In these 13 drone strikes there was 60-85 killed, 0-2 of those were civilians and 0 were children. These drone strikes are very accurate and unlike what people against drones say, there are not hundreds of civilian casualties. So ask yourself, would you rather have the risk of killing a few civilians, or would you rather risk the lives of hundreds of american soldiers by sending them into these dangerous areas? If the U.S. didn't use drones imagine how long it would take to find people,

As humans increase technology, they are putting everyone to danger and risk. Creating drones has been a huge, helpful and a dangerous step towards society and technology. The drones that humans create to use for war, also create terrorists and more threats towards the United States.

In addition to the aforementioned worry, there are people saying that civilians are not safe at all. Apparently, “[in] a meta-study of drone strikes, between 8 to 17% of all people killed in drone strikes are civilians,” and after the terrorist attacks in September 11, 2001, the operations carried out by the U.S. overseas have killed approximately 174 and 1,047 civilians in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen (Drones). A hundred and thirty interviews by Stanford’s and New York University’s researchers with victims and bystanders have given way to the reality that people go through harm that is much more than bodily harm or death, and listen to the drone of these mechanical soldiers every hour of each day, fearful of possible impending death (Drones).

Three-thousand deaths have resulted in drone attacks and only 1.5 percent of these deaths were “high profile” personnel. Out of these deaths about 20 percent were either civilian or children. This statistic only accounts for the known drone attacks since the government keeps information of these killing secured (Galliott, Jai, and Bradley Strawser). When drones were first invented its intensions were mainly for surveillance. Over the years they have been modified and upgraded to perform tasks that can even match manned aerial vehicles which leads to the first argument for drones. With the use of drones it limits the amount of soldiers in dangerous situations. Drones are controlled by a pilot that sits in a safe command room with a high

Undoubtedly, governments do not wish to kill civilians in their wars against terrorism. With the use of drones,

Some people might say, drones make more terrorists than they create because enemies dying from drones will motivate others to join the army against drones. Although this

The world isn’t perfect, nor will it ever be. Some acts require military intervention, which involves many sacrifices for the greater good. Drones are a controversial method of combating terrorism. Some argue that these targeted strikes are unethical, ineffective, and only increase terrorist violence, while others believe it is indeed an ethical and effective method of combatting terrorism. With the information gathered, it is easy to come to the conclusion that drones are a necessary asset to the United States to fight terrorism.