Drone Strikes

It is important to analyze the historical implications of UAVs. Would the United states have entered war with Persian Gulf, Kosovo or Iraq if there was potential for retaliation on U.S soil. Would the the United States have entered those wars, if those countries could choose to counter attack with UAVs? A question of proportionate response also creates reasons to believe there are moral downsides to count against using drones. The increase of asymmetric warfare techniques by one side of the conflict leads to the rise of a response in asymmetric warfare by the other side. It is not difficult to see similarities between drones and suicide bombers: one is high tech and the other low tech, neither gives the other

Drone Warfare; Summary and Overview This essay consists of a thorough analysis and overview on the book titled Drone Warfare by John Kaag and Sarah Kreps. Drone Warfare covers the political, juridical, and ethical aspects of remotely piloted aircrafts known as drones. The book touches on the political ramifications that the United States’ drone program causes and the general public’s opinion on drones. Drone Warfare also talks about the relationship between the drone program and international laws.

September 11 attacks marked an unprecedented development and advancement of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones. Because of their technological capabilities and strategic advantages, drones have been used by the United States government as one of the main weapons in ‘war against terrorism.’ An unmanned aircraft was first used by Elmer Sperry, creator of the gyroscope, when sinking a German captured battleship, but its usage for military purposes began after 1985 (Shaw, 2012, p. 1490). As the United States initiated the use drones against Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces, vast criticism sparked throughout the world questioning its legality under the international law. In this paper, I will focus on the

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

It was the day February 4, 2002 in Afghanistan, the day of the first authorized drone strike by the U.S. A CIA Predator drone prowled the skies in search of prey. It was searching for a group that the CIA suspected to include Osama Bin Laden. After some time, the group was located, and the Predator drone fired on the group, killing all of the targets. After further insight, it was discovered that the targets, now all dead, were just civilians gathering scrap metal ("Should the United"). Should drones be used for military strikes on terrorism? This is an ongoing modern debate, which has very contrasting viewpoints. Drones are used in military operations, usually in sudden aerial strikes aimed to quickly

As discussed in the next section, some critics of these types of responses to transnational terrorism argue that a law enforcement operations model should be applied rather than the law of armed conflict because of the nature of the operations that are involved. For instance, Kels notes that human rights advocates “insist upon a legal geography of war, whereby states must apply a law enforcement (rather than armed conflict) model to any hostilities conducted outside of universally recognized hot battlefields like Afghanistan” (B3). This approach, however, ignores the realities of military operations on the ground and consequences of using a law enforcement operations model rather than the law of armed conflict to control these efforts (Kels B3). As Kels points out, “Holding a drone operator, fighter pilot or sailor directing ordnance at an overseas terrorist hideout to the same detain-first, shoot-last standards as a Metro police officer would negate the very purpose of the weapons system, which is precisely the goal of some activists” (B3). Indeed, rather than improving America’s opportunities to apply FSW to eliminate threats emanating from other countries that are unable or unwilling to stop them, these arguments only add further fuel to the anti-drone rhetoric in ways that may even encourage additional terrorist incursions from abroad.

Historian John Olsen notes that “military commanders have come to look to air power as a quick and cheap solution to otherwise complex international problems.” Airpower has provided the US with a flexible, relatively low-cost, low-commitment tool that makes dabbling outside of international norms and rules less costly and therefore more attractive. Unfortunately, there is a potentially unseen cost, US prestige.

United States’ military drones, mankind’s best invention, has become a nightmare for terrorists and innocent civilians and also become more controversial under Obama administration. Drones are unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), controlled by experts from several miles away or sometimes thousands of miles away. At first, drones were mainly used for surveillance, but later they were equipped with missiles. The military didn’t hesitate to equip the drones with missiles, since it would make easier for military to carry out missions. The military depends on drones more than it should by using them when it’s not necessary. This controversial issue was raised when Americans became aware of deaths and damage drones caused in Middle East. The drones are

Indeed, in the last years, few States have adopted politics on targeted killings even in the territories of other States. This trend constitutes one of the major issues to be addressed at international level. Such policies have been justified as legitimate response to face the unlawful way of fighting of terrorist groups. However, new technologies – and especially drones – changed the old practice of killing, making it easier for the ones possessing them. The outcome of this situation has been “the displacement of clear legal standards with a vaguely defined license to kill, and the creation of a major accountability vacuum.” The aim of this paper is to analyze the legality of States ' new practice of targeted killings, providing it with a legal framework and estimating the impact of such policies in the new warfare system.

September 11, 2001: one of the most grueling days in the history of the United States, the biggest terrorist attack on American soil. Not only did these attacks destroy symbols of America and take the lives of innocent workers, family members, heroes, and friends, but they sparked the discussion of public safety pitted against personal security in the country. On October 7, 2001, President George W. Bush administered the first use of drones in the fight against terrorism. The controversial topic has left many Americans asking themselves the crucial question: Should the United States continue using drone strikes against terrorists? The morality and effectiveness of drones has prompted discussions in the fight against terrorism on the homefront. The United States should continue to use drone strikes to fight in the war against terrorism as it is an ethical strategy in order to save the lives of many Americans.

Writers of the German based magazine Military Technology wrote an article in 2012 detailing the possibilities of the vast amount of current drones and of further advancements that may occur in the future. Dennis-Peter Merklinghaus is the editor-in-chief at the magazine and along with Brian Kindamo, a regular contributor to MT, and Jürgen Pöppelmann who served as the aviation expert for the Mönch Group all regaled that “according to recent analyses, UAVs accomplish intelligence gathering, as well as offensive combat roles. The consequences will have increasing demand in the future as forces rely on technology development” (37). They then proceed to look into the future by spinning tails of micro and mini UCAVs that could be taken into hostile territory in substitute for actual soldiers which would save countless lives and subdue the danger from behind a screen with a simple control (Kindamo et al. 38). Kindamo, Merklinghaus, and Pöppelmann list the endless possibilities of UCAVs in the future world armies and aim to sway even the most anti-droner by showing them a future where the aim is so precise, only confirmed targets die.

While the debate over the use of drones for counterterrorism efforts has intensified, the arguments, both for and against their usage, although informed by plausible logics, are supported primarily by anecdotal evidence and not by systematic empirical investigation. This lack of attention is unfortunate: unmanned aerial vehicles, and

Eleven years ago, the United States Air Force launched a missile from a drone for the first time at a test range in the Nevada desert (Drone Test) . The use of armed drones has risen dramatically since 2009. Now drone strikes are almost a daily occurrence. In 2011 the use of drones continued to rise with strikes in (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia. Proponents of armed drones argue that their ability to watch and wait, with their highly accurate sensors and cameras gives increased control over when and where to strike its both increasing the chances of success and

CIA and JSOC drone strikes are illegal. They violate the Hague Convention that states contracting powedrs cannot attack one another without declaring war or giving an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war (Hague III: Opening of Hostilities, 1907 ). The CIA has also drifted away from its primary mission of collecting data. The drone strikes conducted by the CIA kill many militants however also kill just as many innocent civilians. Yemen and Pakistan are the victims to

Military aircraft flying near U.S. bases or in restricted areas have reported close calls with drones on several occasions this year (Whitlock, 2015).The rapid emergence and development of the UAV and UAS industry comes with new threats and potential issues, such as the infringement of privacy and security. There has been several incidents which have raised some eyebrows since the emergence of this technology. According to Whitlock article pilots have reported close encounter with nearly 700 incidents in the year 2015. The exponential growth of the UAS industry, there is inconsistency in providing an integrated system to establish a restriction on a UAS from flying into a restricted airspace. According to the FAA, a drone is considered a civilian