Do the Advantages of Drones Outweigh the Negatives?

Byman continues with this argument, stating that drones achieve their intended goal without risking American lives. Because drones only require a remote control to pilot, they do not put a member of the US Air Force at risk. This not only reduces the amount of military deaths in foreign countries, but it allows drones to travel to places that are deemed too dangerous for actual US pilots. Byman states that in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, “the government exerts little or no control over remote areas, which means that it is highly dangerous to go after militants hiding out there. Worse yet, in Pakistan and Yemen, the governments have at times cooperated with militants” (Byman 2). The majority of the time, sending in an actual military force is simply too dangerous. Instead of sending people, the US military can send robots.

Drones already carry a negative, political connotation. The breaches in sovereignty are a major political issue for involved countries. Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are examples of the United States’ willingness to conduct military strikes without the consent of the governing body within the country. Furthermore, targeted killings are essentially a means for assassinations, which were prohibited under the Reagan administration. However, this fact is abated, as the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki (US Citizen) demonstrated. Given all this information, would the usage of US drones in Iraq only perpetuate more violence, or bring stability to the region? This report will seek to answer this question. Utilizing an interview with an Associate Professor of Homeland Security at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU), Professor Bonner, as a primary source of research, along with secondary sources from accredited cites, this report will explore the dynamics of the drone program as it pertains to the current situation in Iraq.

The C.I.A. Has far too much authority and the fact remains that even if everyone in the country disagreed with how they were using their drones, they would still find a way to do it discreetly or even through other means, but that absolutely doesn't make it right. I feel that the United States needs to do what is necessary, but I am opposed to the idea that innocent people are often casualties of American presence in a region, or, in this case, the presence of a drone controlled by someone sitting at a military base back home when the button he presses kills

Since September 11, 2001, the United States has been using drone strikes, against the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups. The U.S. Constitution requires that the government must go through a due process before making the decision of attacking and killing a number of people. Drone strikes are usually based on doubtful information, which takes the lives of innocent civilians. In the Middle East, civilians are being killed because of mistaken identity, and for just being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Drone strikes are unlawful because they kill innocent civilians, violate due process, and result in blowback.

In the last decade, the number of drone strikes has increased dramatically as more UAVs are sent overseas and the military sees a greater demand in their utilization. In 2005, there were only 2 US airstrikes in Pakistan and in 2010, there were 127. The Pentagon currently operates over 7,000 drones and the budget for 2014 currently estimates over $5 billion for drone research, development, and procurement. Since 9/11, over 95% of all non-battlefield ground killings have been conducted by drones. The United States operates them with consent of Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Somalian leaders, although their public statements and sentiment are strongly anti-drone. In response to the recent controversy over the ethics of this surveillance, President Obama made a speech on May 23, 2013 outlining his justification for the drone program and promised more transparency and tighter policies toward their usage.

It is important that, “The government’s power to kill must be carefully controlled or it could turn into a tyranny worse than terrorism.”(Suarez, Daniel. TED) that is why there are so many strict guidelines to the U.S. Armed Forces actions. In countries where conflict is present, the United States has jurisdiction to intervene with permission from the host state according to international laws of warfare and conflict. Countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia have given official consent to the United States to use drone strikes within their countries, because they cannot control terrorist groups present. Most drone strikes take place in these countries too. There are strict military standards for review of combative situations, some read as follows: “(1) Near certainty that terrorist target is present [in the area of action] (2) Near certain that non-combatants are safe [from drone or similar strike] (3) Assessment that capture [of target] is not feasible (4) An assessment that relevant government authorities in the country of action is contemplated. (5) No other reasonable alternatives exist.” (Louise. Drones). These guidelines make it so that every situation is thoroughly examined while considering all options. This is very common in The United States’ use of drones. The drone operators hold a level of immunity because they are thousands of miles from the combat, that being said

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

The IHL, also known as the international humanitarian laws state that “the targeted individual must be directly participating in hostilities with the attacker”. Additionally, the human rights law states that “the targeted individual must pose an imminent threat that only lethal force can prevent”(drones.procon.org). Suspecting connections to militant organizations or under the CIA’s policy of “signature” drone strikes does not make it an excuse of profiling individuals as terrorists. Such assumption is not legally sufficient to target someone as the sufferer of a drone strike.(drones.procon.org) A military drone is mostly used when war is not openly declared, but is authorized by the government. Attacks by the CIA, which is responsible for eighty percent of the strikes, are classified as covert operations.(http://drones.procon.org/) The government cannot provide any legal information about how the CIA appoints the targets of the strikes. Apparently, the government continues to use military drones to accomplish unlawful killings of “expected members”, with the realization that it has contravened the international law as well as human

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

Ever since 2001 the united states has been using drones known as uavs and predators to locate or destroy terrorists and their out posts, before we used drones it was very expensive to find terrorists as we had to use satellites until we built the Gnat or known as the Predator drone and shortly after the drone was made it was put to work. The Predator drone was used in the mission to find Osama Bin Laden after the september 11 attacks. This adds to the long-time debate over Drone use, there are pros and cons to the use of Drone strikes some believe we should use Drone strikes yet others believe it's ‘’unsafe and has a playstation mentality’’. We should use drones because Drone strike destroy terrorist networks all

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,

Since the Obama administration came into office, drone strikes are the most frequently used technique in order to fight international terrorism. With approximately 7,000 drones of which about 2000 are armed, this counterterrorism strategy is one of the most efficient tools of the U.S.. Especially, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia, drones are deployed where internationally operating terrorist groups are hiding. In countries like Pakistan, the U.S. works in accordance with the Pakistani government. Currently, a controversial debate is heating up in the U.S. and amongst the international community regarding the advantages and disadvantages of drone strikes.

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 drones to deliver mail is a huge step forward for the Australian Post and there are multiple reasons for this. Drones allow for a more efficient and quicker transportation of goods to a lot more places that may have been inaccessible by car. It’s even cheaper to run and safer for the environment. Furthermore, drones don’t have the same disadvantages that a postman would have. Why wouldn’t you use drones?