Drone 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.

Much controversy surrounds the use of drone strikes to mitigate terrorism. Many believe it is effective in eradicating terrorists, however the aftermath of the situation is quite contradictory. Drone strikes “kill women, children, they kill everybody. It’s a war,

informant who provided information to the U.S. officials that the child is a terrorist. Should the decision to strike be only based on the informant? Can those informants who get money for their information are reliable? What if informants provide any information only to receive payment for it? The decision to strike should not be based only on such information on the basis of tremendous injustice, with no imminent threat and with no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is an actual terrorist group member. People in a war zones, such as Pakistan or Afghanistan, live in a constant fear of drones whooshing above their heads that may kill them “accidentally” by a strike, because statistically around 3,000 people were killed by strikes including estimate 200 children and many civilians who were also injured during strikes. President Obama said in this documentary “this is a targeted focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists.” Nevertheless, the identity of some of those terrorists is unknown and the

In President Obama’s speech on drone policy, given on May 23, 2013 in Washington D.C., he asserts, “dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers and operatives have been taken off the battlefield... Simply put, those [drone} strikes have saved lives.” Many American’s support this view. According to a July 18, 2013 Pew Research survey, 61% of Americans supported drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia (Drake). However, this belief that drone strikes make the United States safer by decimating terrorist networks around the world is widely contested. An opposing viewpoint is that these strikes create more terrorist than they kill. There is a common misperception that drones are precise, killing only the target and entourage. According to a meta-study of drone strikes, between 8 to 17% of all people killed are civilians (Sing). People who see their loved ones injured or killed in drone

Technology is changing the way humans complete certain tasks. Whether it be communicating with others, or using navigation tools for directions, technology affects everyone in some way or another. In fact, technology is changing the way our government fights wars with other countries and terrorist groups. Drones have become one of the most sought after pieces of military equipment in the last decade. They have become one of the many important tools our government uses for counterterrorism policies in the United States. Recently, these defense mechanisms have received a great deal of public attention, which has stirred up much controversy. Many people, including government officials and politicians, question the necessity and ethics of drones

In the article “10 Ways to Fix the Drone War” by Rosa Brooks, a law professor at Georgetown University and previously served as a senior advisor at the U.S. State Department, wrote that, “The president should publicly acknowledge all targeted killings outside traditional battlefields within a reasonable time period, identifying those targeted, laying out the legal factual basis for the decision to target, and identifying, to the best of available knowledge, death, property damage, and injury resulting from the strike(s)” (Brooks). In addition, the article stated above, Holenwinski and Lewis write about Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s method of making his troops get a civilian mindset, they state that“[U.S]commanders drilled this mindset into their troops, understanding that civilian harm and anger crippled the mission. Better training and doctrine on avoiding civilians and responding properly to harm followed for all deploying forces….The isolation of drone pilots from this shift in mindset means that new pilots do not benefit” (Holenwinksi and Lewis). When the president has the information needed this will be given to the pilots who will be more aware of what the results of the strike will be. The pilots will be more cautious on how to execute the strike as they will be knowledgeable and have a civilian mindset. When they get a civilian mindset they will know that there are families they are killing. This connects to my definition of justice of how it will create limitations to drone strikes as it will take longer to coordinate an attack that will not kill civilians. The process of mapping out the attack will be checked on by congress thus limiting the

Kaag and Kreps’s main concerns are that drone technology is not consistent with international laws. The reasons for the author’s beliefs is that drone technology do not adhere the principals that international laws consist of. The authors talk about jus ad bellum – the right of war, also interpreted as the right of retaliation on the basis of self-defense – and how that justification is based on false principals. The other principal that the authors feel is being misused is jus in bello – the justification (or lack thereof) to engage in a war – due to the issues with interpretation that is existent in modern warfare. The authors believe that further preventative measures need to be established to insure that drone warfare adheres to international laws.

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 war on terror is a never-ending battle. The United States has been in many wars since the day our country was founded. There has been an estimated 651,008 deaths in war battle, 1.2 million deaths during war. An estimated 42 million service men and women have joined the armed forces in protecting our country (Science Line). Every day our state and policy makers are finding new ways to protect the 42 million service men and women. In the early 1990s’ the U.S created the Predator Program (Woods). This program allows air force men and women to fly unoccupied aircrafts in remote locations for intelligence gathering as well as executing high profile terrorist networks. This program protects thousands of service

The military’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are able to fly in the airspace for up to 17 hours providing Soldiers, Marines, and Sailors on the ground real-time images of the enemy for 24-hours 7 days a week. They were engineered for precision and power in order to eliminate the enemy without the need of endangering friendly forces. The technological advancement of the drone has furthered America’s military agenda in multiple ways for the better, however, hundreds of civilian lives have been caught in the blast zone of these military drones. Today’s society and engineers have deemed the use of drones as morally good, but what makes killing the enemy from a remote, safe location any different than chemical warfare, especially if civilian lives

In recent history, the United States has progressively become a more technologically advanced military with the capability to conduct war-fighting with sophisticated equipment to include robots, UAVs, Tomahawks, and nuclear warheads. These weapons are used to reduce American casualties and can be controlled from a computer on the other side of the world. Although these technologic advancements are undoubtedly impressive, hundreds of military and civilian leaders have argued over the morality of using these weapons to accomplish mission success. However, The United States’ increasing reliance on technology and unmanned weapon systems is morally and ethically acceptable under the Just War’s Jus

The US has conducted over four hundred drone strikes in Pakistan alone since. From these attacks, estimates state that between 700 and 900 civilians have died. This is almost one quarter of the total deaths from these strikes, and these people have died from no transgression. These people live in fear, earning small amounts of money, living small, innocent lives. However no life on our earth can be small enough to die for no good reason. Since 2004, there have been less than 50 recorded civilian deaths in the US that have been conducted by Islamic extremist groups, not just groups from Pakistan. These attacks do serve a purpose, however the cost of human life is too great. Those affected by drone attacks do not have the power to stop this. It’s down to me, it’s down to you and it’s down to us.

Empirical studies of targeted killings and civilian casualties in counterinsurgency and counterterrorism show that drone strikes may obtain either of the following two outcomes:

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 world has always been filled with fighting and always will be. There are a lot of factors that determine who comes out on top. Technology is always the deciding factor. With that technology, there are many conflicts. The U.S. Military using drones has been one of the most highly debated topics. Even through the doubt, Military drones have proven time and time again to work. Drones are being constantly updated and fixing any flaws that they have at the moment. In the future, drone warfare is unavoidable. When drones were first invented, of course, they did not work amazing. Throughout the years that drones have been around, they shown that they are becoming a more advanced and needed machine. The world is becoming increasingly