Drones: A Theoretical Analysis

The general argument made by Daniel Byman in his 2013 article “Why Drones Work: The Case for Washington’s Weapon of Choice” is that the United States should continue the use of drones. More specifically, he argues that drones are a “necessary instrument” for combating terrorism due to their effectiveness (Byman 32). He writes that drones do their jobs “remarkably well” by offering a “low-risk way” to target threats of national security (Byman 32). In addition, he writes that, in most cases, drones are the “most sensible” option, because they reduce the chances of civilians being “caught in the kill zone” (Byman 34, 35).  In this article, Byman is suggesting that the “critics” of drones need to realize that alternatives to drone strikes are

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.

In the article “Why Drones Work: The Case for Washington’s Weapon of Choice” by Daniel L. Byman many topics about the use and opinions of U.S. attack drones. U.S. attack drones are used in place of full raids or large bombings to take out terrorists. Most of the they the cost of an attack is greater than the drone itself. Many people have mixed feelings about the drones, but many people think that they cause many civilian casualties.

Are military drones really necessary to fight terrorism? Is it the only way to resolve this issue? Drone technology appears to be increasingly popular as the need of “self-protection” against terrorists becomes more urgent. It is fair to conclude that drones are somewhat efficient. However, plentiful of instances and studies have proved otherwise. The usage of military drones promotes terrorism, violates international laws, and invades privacy. They are harmful rather than useful to our society.

All the reasons why not to put the use of drones in place all relate in some way to the well-being of civilians, as would the justifications of why they should be equipped. What the civilians know from the government’s public announcements and private decisions, how the killings done by drones affect the people, to the quintessence of their security are all important and connected to each other. That said, “More than 87 countries own some type of surveillance or attack drone, changing the way nations conduct war and threatening to begin a new arms race as governments scramble to counterbalance their adversaries” (Drones). More than ever, there is a race worldwide to come with the better machine—the mechanical soldier to fight for its country. Safety of civilians come with this, as if one country were to attack with drones, one of the only ways to counter that for the people’s sake is with the invaded country’s own drones. Iran, in 2010, revealed its own drone, the initial armed one at that, and China itself exhibited “twenty-five drone models,” with six-hundred and eighty drone programs of development in play by governments, research institutes, and companies globally in 2011 in comparison to the mere one-hundred and ninety-five in 2005 (Drones). “The Teal Group, a defense-consulting firm, estimated in June 2013 that the global market for the research, development, and procurement of armed drones would nearly double over the next decade from $5.2 billion annually to $11.6 billion”(Drones). Of course, another note is that “In a process that the experts call ‘monopoly erosion’, drone use is spreading fast, confirming that they are becoming the new

Over the 35 years that unmanned drones have seen an increase in the military there have been various differing arguments on how to improve the tactic of using these deleterious weapons. “Between January 2012 and February 2013, leaked documents showing that the United States special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 being the intended targets.”(Marina Fang) These methods of combatting terrorists haven’t been fully proven efficient yet, but with President Donald Trump’s new statement about drones, saying that “the U.S. needs to use all means necessary to combat terrorism” there is bound to be some drastic changes to how the United States proceeds in fighting the war against terror. Because of how drones are

Drones, or Unmanned Ariel Combat Vehicles, are armed, remotely controlled Ariel planes used to perform surveillance and targeted killings in areas of military conflict or suspected terrorism. In the past few centuries, military drones have gained increasing usage and popularity due to their capacity to perform precise strikes and eliminate pilot casualties. As military drone usage becomes more and more prevalent, their social and psychological impacts are closely studies and analyzed. Since the first drone strikes in Pakistan in 2004, drone researchers have found numerous negative effects of drones on both their controllers and the people living in areas they surveil.

Drone warfare is the most humane and efficient way of the modern age, a safe and efficient counter to guerilla warfare. With the ability to be unmanned, stealthy, low cost, low casualty rating, and versatile armament at the drone’s disposal, drone warfare should be an active part of the US military. Although some criticism to drone warfare being inhumane, a useless resource of our technology, and past mistakes of drones before, the pros outweigh the cons of the debate.

Nearly every week there is news of another drone strike and this has left many nations deeply divided on the issue. Many people support the use of drones proclaiming that they will save the lives of many American soldiers by allowing for the United States to wage wars against other countries without putting troops on the ground. Critics of this idea state that the use of drones removes the risk associated with war and can lead to the killing of innocent civilians. In reference to civilian casualties Noah Shachtman states that, “A drone can't dig through the rubble and see what the consequences of that Hellfire missile was” (Dretzin & Rushkoff, 2010, 1:09:51). The use of drones has an even more brutal cultural effect on Middle Eastern countries who are under attack by these machines. Every day innocent civilians wake up and live out their day fearing for their lives that a US drone strike intended to stop terrorism will kill them. In an interview with a civilian Pakistani father, he explained that "drones are always on my mind. It makes it difficult to sleep. They are like a mosquito. Even when you don't see them, you can hear them, you know they are there” (Friedersdorf, 2012). This life filled with constant terror and stress has caused a negative cultural shift in the Middle East and the constant increase of drone strikes definitely does not help

For example, three miles from the Afghan border in Pakistan, 13 militants from Punjab and 5 innocent civilians were killed in a residential compound by a missile from a drone in September 2008 (Khan). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism researched the drones impact on the Middle East, and “it estimated that about twenty-five hundred to thirty-six hundred people have been killed [since 2004 in just Pakistan], of which four hundred to nine hundred were civilians and about two hundred were children” (Gale). So many innocent live are being ended while trying to end a few. There are many other ways to find those certain few people without resorting to launching a weapon of mass destruction. The Army and Air Force could have a search drone locating only the specific people that are dangerous. Besides, drones are not always perfect and have serious electrical complications, despite common

Over the past few decades, drones have slowly been coming into use, showing astonishing results, such as a 1.5% civilian casualty rate (Lewis 1-9). At first they were only used for surveillance, but now, they are used for much more than that. The military should continue using drones because of the many advantages they have over traditional combat methods, namely fewer civilian casualties, lower expenditures, increased abilities, and the moral responsibility of their use. Despite these facts, there are those who question the use of drones and believe that drones create more threats to our military than they destroy. The advantages of drones provide the U.S. military with an edge over terrorists and will help end the war on terrorism with as little costs and casualties as possible.

The world isn’t perfect, nor will it ever be. Some acts require military intervention, which involves many sacrifices for the greater good. Drones are a controversial method of combating terrorism. Some argue that these targeted strikes are unethical, ineffective, and only increase terrorist violence, while others believe it is indeed an ethical and effective method of combatting terrorism. With the information gathered, it is easy to come to the conclusion that drones are a necessary asset to the United States to fight terrorism.

Drone warfare, first strongly used by the Central Intelligence Agency to target Osama bin Laden after he led a series of attack in the United States on September eleventh. During the time of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, drones had a usage time of approximately 100,000 flight hours when performing tasks in these operations. Also known as unmanned aerial vehicles, the primary use of drones today is for surveillance. However, during recent years, drones have had other uses, such as airstrikes. With these airstrikes, there have been a large amount of civilian casualties due to the drones targeting highly populated areas. The result of these casualties has left a question wandering in people’s minds, are drones ethical and humane to use? The use of drones in the military provides for effective and efficient operations by having capabilities that other pieces of technology are unable to perform.

Drones or Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are aircrafts, remotely controlled by on the ground pilots or autonomous programing, which may be equipped with missiles and bombs for attack missions. Drones have become a major strategy instrument in U.S. counterterrorism program. In Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, U.S. drones observe these countries from the skies and occasionally are used to launch lethal strikes against suspected terrorists. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the use of drone strikes has been substantially increased from “54 (under Bush’s Administration) to 371 (under Obama’s Administration).” US Drone Program is ineffective due to a certain policies that has not been adjust by the government; ultimately, the usage of drone would go against moral and ethical issue that would lead to the long-term consequences.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), more commonly known as drones, are remote controlled aircraft with numerous applications. Smaller drones are used today for surveillance while larger ones can carry large missiles and bombs. When the “War on Terror” first started this technology was still in its infancy while today there are over 7,000 drones ready to deploy. (Murphy) With the extreme jump in the use of this ever growing technology it has garnered a great deal of controversy over its use by the military. The main arguments between the two sides are exactly how effective are they at killing the enemy while keeping civilians safe and are drones a better alternative to just “boots on the ground.” The U.S. should continue to use drones in the Middle East but we need to alter exactly how we use them. These being that we need sufficient information on the target area to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties and sufficient measures in place to continue safe operation.