Essay on Drone Warfare: Rethinking Morals

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

Since the events of 9/11, drone strikes have become a tool for the United States as it fights a global war against terrorist organizations. The advantages and disadvantages of this particular counterterrorism option continue to be debated. Instead of sending in warfighters to achieve specific objectives, many argue that unmanned combat aerial vehicles provide the U.S. military and government with low-risk and low-cost options as it engages in military operations in other regions of the world. Compared with manned fighter aircraft, some of these unmanned vehicles are able to fly longer without stopping, which affords the U.S. with better intelligence collection and targeting opportunities. Even if the aircraft were shot down, there is not

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.

It is irrefutable that it is just a matter of time before drones, also known as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), become a crucial part of the US Military. They effectively weaken terrorist groups, mainly Al Qaeda and ISIS or ISIL, and are much less dangerous to civilians and United States soldiers compared to other methods. Those who are skeptical of the potential role of drones in the US Military are simply ill informed.

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) first made their appearance in 1919 when Elmer Sperry, who also invented the gyroscope and autopilot, attacked a captured German ship with the first UAV loaded down to with explosives(("U.s. army unmanned," 2010). At the time this was a revolutionary weapon, but if we fast forward 80 years from the time of that experiment, UAVs became a common and prolific part of the modern battlefield. Although there is little debate as to the legality of their use on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, in recent years there are been much debate as to the role they should play in the larger American declared Global War on Terror or

“There is no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war, except its ending” (Abraham Lincoln). When I look at the world today, watch the news, or listen to the radio – I am often disheartened by the amount of violence I witness arise in our society. Recently, acts of hate and hostility have been exhibited all around, and alas have become a common occurrence. With the world so filled with violence, is it necessary to implement and build new weapons that make murder less difficult? A recent invention entitled a drone has sadly become a general weapon used in war. A drone is a human operated aircraft that makes killing impersonal and blinding to the pilot. When drones are utilized in violent situations, there are many civilian casualties. Drones should not be used as a weapon in warfare because they are an immoral and unsentimental device used to take away human life.

Drones are an effective counter insurgency tool deployed extensively throughout the world, especially by clandestine intelligence organizations often with the help of the country’s respective Air Force. Not only do they serve as an effective weapon, they minimize human

Drones are incredible new devices that can be used for so many different; these flying vehicles are not controlled by other navigational software embedded in the drone or by a pilot on the ground controlling the aircraft by way of remote control (whatis). From delivery and recreation to recording video footage of battlefields and disaster zones, drones can be incredibly diverse in purpose allowing them to be used for both nonessential and serious purposes, including in the military (Margi). The use of drones in the military can give the United States and advantage in military conflicts, put the least amount of civilians in harm’s way, and save the lives and preserve the wellbeing of military personnel.

A man walks into a government facility, screams, “This is your fault!”, before aggressively shooting at them. Some effects of drones in warfare are the creation of terrorists, trauma, insecurity, and murder of innocent civilians. Drones have many uses, in warfare and common life, but almost always there are consequences, therefore, drones should not be used in warfare. By defining the necessity to understand the effects that make drones dangerous, by refuting counterarguments of the safetyness and importance of drones, and by presenting documented evidence, and expert opinions, the reader will be persuaded to be against the use of drones in warfare.

Another objection against the morality of drones and remote warfare is the claim that all warfare comes with an inherent risk and that drones minimize this risk. This lack of risk may cause passivity with war, which up until this point, has never been seen in warfare before. To respond to this objection, Australian Geopolitics Professor Christian Enemark wrote in this book, Armed Drones and the Ethics of War: Military Virtue in a Post-heroic Age, a response that defended the United States use of remotely piloted weapons.[3] He said:

Over the years war has changed dramatically from having front lines and charging with spears to guns and explosives, then it evolved further to poisonous gas and airplanes. Thanks to all of the technology of our generation we have come up with a new form of war. Drone warfare, this is when a robot is controlled by a computer by a human. These drones are capable of dropping bombs and shooting bullets. As a result, this form of warfare is extremely different than anything we have ever used before, it is easy, fast, and doesn't cause as many casualties as previous war techniques. The U.S, at the moment, is only using drones for killing terrorists in the middle east, which sounds like a convenient solution to our problems but sadly it’s not. The

The use of drones in battle fields remains to be one of the most divisive subjects in modern warfare. Use of unmanned aerial vehicles has become the hallmark of the war against terror. The move has elicited debate which is constantly gaining traction as more damming statistics are released on collateral damages associated with drone warfare. The United States has frequently deployed unmanned aerial vehicles to track down and kill enemy combatants and their leaders. Some of the notable killings were those of Jihad John, the brutal ISISi extremist famous for his execution of westerners in Syria and other al Qaeda commanders in restive terrains of northern Pakistan. Critics insist that the use of a unmanned aerial vehicles blurs the line between ethics and accountability. To back up their claims, they have pointed to the rising casualties of war where innocent persons are losing their lives as a result of drone strikes. Even though the use of unmanned aerial vehicles has been roundly criticized especially, by human rights bodies, it is clear that the tactic have been very effective in eliminating ruthless extremists. In my view, unmanned aerial vehicles have been instrumental in safeguarding the lives of many American soldiers while at the same time effectively executing its mandate be eliminating enemy combatants right inside their territories.

Have you ever imagined someone you love being killed by a terrorist machine? Drones are flying machines that are used by the government for several types of jobs but mainly for warfare. By defining that the use of drones is more harmful than it is good and by refuting counter arguments that they make the military’s job safer, and by presenting claims that the use of drones cause hazardous risks, one will be persuaded that drones are dangerous.

Drone strikes abroad are an increasing global catastrophe. Due to the negative effects that drones have on human beings, the risk outweighs the reward. Drones, unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs, are classified under remotely - controlled aircraft. These drones may be armed with missiles and bombs for attack missions. The earliest make-shift drones have been used for military purposes since the 1800s. As warfare and military weaponry have changed, so have drones. Since modified for modern military operations in the the early 2000s, their uses have rapidly expanded due to cost effectiveness and success. Since then, more than 87 countries own and use some type of surveillance or attack drone. It wasn’t until recently when

Technological advances play a more substantial role in the twenty-first century than any other century. New innovations are being implemented in a variety of subjects and fields, a few of which include athletics, medicine, and, more recently, military. Operators of militaristic drones fly the device at high altitudes and can control their view by turning the drone and zooming in on the landscape below. One feature that spikes controversy is the ability to lock onto a target and strike the suspected perpetrator, who could possibly end up being an innocent civilian from elevated levels. When observing the negative outcomes of these mechanisms, it is realized that stricter regulations on the use of drone attacks by the United States military need