“Legal, Ethical, and wise”: these are the three adjectives the Obama administration has used to describe its program of conducting targeted killings by drown strikes. (Jurecic, 2015) The question of whether or not and how to target individuals for killing, and the reactions of doing so, raise difficult issues. Drones violate international law, “which restricts when and how different states can engage in armed conflict.” (Memmott, 2013) Yet, as with domestic law, there is no conflict between two formal states. Also, most drone strikes are carried out by the CIA, which as a civilian agency and a noncombatant under international law is not governed by the same laws of war that cover US military agencies. Are drone strikes ethical? Having spent …show more content…
(2013). Assassination drones: A new type of warfare. . Retrieved from The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 32(1), 34-35.: …show more content…
C. (1961). The New English Bible. Oxford University Press. Boyle, M. J. (01/01/2013). The Cost and consequences of drone warfare. International affairs, 1-29. Dunn, D. H. (09/01/2013). Drones: disembodied aerial warfare and the unarticulated threat. International affairs, 1237-1246. Economist, T. (2011, july 30). Drones and the man/ the ethics of warfare. the economist, 400. Retrieved from the economist: Retrieved from http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login? Jurecic, Q. (2015, August 17). Moral Theory and Drone Warfare: A Literature Review. Retrieved from LAWFARE: https://www.lawfareblog.com/moral-theory-and-drone-warfare-literature-review Mcbride, C. (2012, April 21). Turning Iraq. Retrieved from CNBC: www.cnbc.com/turningpoint/Iraq Memmott, M. (2013, October 22). U.S. Drone Strikes Violate International Law, Reports Allege. Retrieved from NPR: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/10/22/239597012/u-s-drone-strikes-violate-international-law-reports-allege News, V. (2012). Drone strikes 'legal, ethical and wise' in terror fight. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?:
The US government has recently begun to send drones, silent flying machines, to counter the threat of terrorism in the Middle East, with the claim that these bombers will save lives. While some people may be swayed by these claims, stating that drones slowly weaken terrorist action, I argue that unmanned strategic bombing is inefficient, since first, they are only a bombardment, and will not be able to completely stop terrorism without invasion force, and also, their efficiency and accuracy rates are extremely low. If drones continue to be used limitlessly, instead of a defeated ISIS and al-Qaeda, the results will only be the destruction of the Middle Eastern land.
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
Byman’s tone in this article can be described as defensive. In his argument, Byman attempts to refute the arguments of many Americans that maintain that drones should be eliminated. This is demonstrated in Byman’s response to public criticism that using drones creates more terrorists. He states, “critics...
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.
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.
In August of 2012 an engineer from Yemen by the name of Faisal bin Ali Gaber, lost his cousin and brother-in-law to a drone strike that was sent with no warning to the town. The CIA and the US military had been using the deadly and lethal drones for well over a decade, also resulting in a death a few weeks prior to the incident in Yemen. The US government notices and has taken steps in trying to reduce their attack numbers, but the strikes were not eliminated fully, still resulting in more deaths.The drone usage should have stricter regulations to reduce the attacks by the US military, not only do they take innocent lives, they also cost a fortune and are being used as killer weapons without restrictions.
The CQ Researcher article “Drone Warfare” discusses the usage of UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles or, more popularly known as, “drones”. The primary focus of the article is to illustrate how the United States government is using the drones and discusses whether or not many of the drone attacks have been legal. Since the C.I.A., Central Intelligence Agency, has such influence over what goes on, they have been able to declare the drone strikes as “lawful acts of war and national self-defense in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.” While some people accept this,whether they believe it as fact or simply accept it as a national defense claim, critics have said “the intelligence agency's
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.
Before exploring the ethical question behind whether or not engineers designing drones being used for the purpose of war is moral or immoral, the relevance and importance of this issue in today’s society must be discussed. The individual engineer that is responsible for signing off on the use of certain drones used in the military, such as the MQ-9 Reaper, has to decide whether or not what they are doing is right for themselves (The Guardian, print). When doctors and persons in the medical field conduct experimental tests on humans where the outcome is unknown, society becomes outraged. This is due to the fact that society believes persons in the medical field have a duty to the public to do well, and to protect society from harm. One could argue that the engineer creating the weaponized version of a drone further protects society and the technology is a means to the common good of homeland defense. Furthermore, this issue in terms of affecting the engineering profession as whole has sparked much debate among peers. Peers among the engineering profession see this technology in terms of a
In response to the 9/11 terror attacks, President George W. Bush declared an all out war on global terrorism. To fight this war, the Bush administration introduced a new weapon, creating the highly secretive US Drone program, pushing the bounds of technology, giving UAVs the power to take life with impunity. In 2009, Barack Obama became president and the rise of the killer drones began. His campaign in the Middle East and abroad would usher in a new age of warfare, one fought not in trenches or fields, but from small air-conditioned rooms, while great Birds of Prey rain Hellfire down upon enemies half a world away; one where powerful men decide who will live
The main unknown and controversial discussion surrounding drone attacks is the ambiguity that coincides with who is made victim by these strikes. One of the main purposes of the military is distinguishing between combatants and innocent bystanders and as drone
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
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
Today’s society is driven by technology and its advancement. Often times the driving force behind major technological breakthroughs is military research and development. New military inventions offer a great deal to society, to include GPS, computers, and even duct tape. However, with the evolution of technology, war has become increasingly more technologically dependent. The new age of warfare offers many benefits, as it attempts to limit some of the inherent chaos of war, but it also conjures more questions regarding the morality of war. The use of drone strikes is an example of where new technology blurs the line between warfare effectiveness and morally justification. Drone warfare, as it is being used in our current irregular war, is not justified as it violates jus in bello and is also considered morally wrong according to