Drones Abroad : An Increasing Global Catastrophe

The use of drones has brought an uproarious debate among both the people of the United States and the people of the world regarding whether or not drones should be sold and used by the public. Drones were first created for military use to scout and attack terrorists who plan to bring havoc to the United States of America. Ever since the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, funding for the use of drones sky-rocketed because people came to the realization that there was a need to formulate different methods of security and defense. Besides the use of security and defense, people have been developing new uses for drones. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is currently issuing rules outlining how they can be used. Ever since drones have hit the shelves for consumers to buy, more and

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

Menacing spy craft... unmanned aerial vehicles... and missile laden predators. These are the images that come to mind when the word "drone" is spoken. Taken to new heights during the Global War on Terror, military drones have struck fear into the hearts of America's enemies. Now the U.S. government is starting to look inward toward its next target: the American people. Already starting along the US/Mexico border, big brother is indiscriminately watching whole neighborhoods via high tech zoom and heat imaging technology. There is even a debate in congress as to whether it is lawful for an American citizen to be killed by a missile firing drone. These actions and debates have caused legitimate concerns for the American people in regards to

Technology has continuously advanced throughout the decades and we have seen advances in military weaponry, telecommunication, social networks, healthcare/medical, automobile engineering, and aerospace. In light of several technological advancements previously stated, the invention of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) has evolved tremendously, and provided tactical advantages for both the military and law enforcement in numerous critical situations. The use of drones received both criticism and praise for what it is capable of. First and foremost, drones are not solely used as “killing machines”. A drone is a form of surveillance and dataveillance system, and is used for nonlethal purposes since the 1950s (Carpenter & Shaikhouni, 2011).

Top counterterrorist advisors from both the Bush and Obama administrations champion drone use as the most effective tool in the war on terror. They are relatively cheap, effective at killing terrorist with minimal civilian casualties. They protect US troops by preventing “boots on the ground” scenarios and ultimately make America safer. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is quoted as say, “the only game in town in terms of trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership” An important question to ask is: Are these short term advantages worth the long term repercussions. Michael J Boyle examines this question in, “The Cost and Consequences of Drone Warfare.” He first question the validity of the claim that drones are effective at killing

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.

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

In the last decade, the number of drone strikes has increased dramatically as more UAVs are sent overseas and the military sees a greater demand in their utilization. In 2005, there were only 2 US airstrikes in Pakistan and in 2010, there were 127. The Pentagon currently operates over 7,000 drones and the budget for 2014 currently estimates over $5 billion for drone research, development, and procurement. Since 9/11, over 95% of all non-battlefield ground killings have been conducted by drones. The United States operates them with consent of Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Somalian leaders, although their public statements and sentiment are strongly anti-drone. In response to the recent controversy over the ethics of this surveillance, President Obama made a speech on May 23, 2013 outlining his justification for the drone program and promised more transparency and tighter policies toward their usage.

Picture your dearest family member out in the battlefield, struggling for dear life. Only being supported by a jug of water and a rifle until a drone appears with medical supplies or reinforcements. Every year technology advances at an increasingly hypersonic pace. The world has gone from the use of bulky telephones to six-inch touch screens. Soon the world will come from using innocent lives to fight for our country to the use of drones in warfare. Thousands of lives each year are cast away in order to protect our country. Drones could be the answer to finding terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen and stop them before they attack. The United States should continue the use of drones in warfare.

After 9/11, the U.S started to implement policies intended to combat terrorism in hopes of preventing further attacks and bring those who were involved to justice. One such policy that the U.S started was to implement the heavy use of drones- unmanned aircraft capable of bombing specific targets. These drones would be controlled by a pilot remotely from the U.S, thousands of miles from where the strikes were taking place. The U.S used these drones to assassinate suspects who were believed to have been linked to terrorism as well as various targets that were deemed to be associated with terrorism, such as weapons factories. Currently, however, there is a debate on the legality, morality, and effectiveness of drones. One side sees the drones as effective at destroying targets while at the same time, minimizing civilian casualties. On the other hand, the other side believes that drones are reliable for

Though military personnel lives are safer with the presence of drones, many who oppose military drones claim that they have increased the death of civilians and do not create safer environments for civilians (Terrill 22). However, drones have been proved to decrease the deaths of civilians due to the technology that allows them to pinpoint their target and strike at that specific target rather than bomb an area that the target is in. For example, in Yemen where many drone strikes have occurred, “civilian death figures… are ‘in the single digits’” (Terrill 22). Drones are claimed to have less collateral damage than the collateral damage caused by manned aerial vehicles. “They strike quickly, and the missile can be diverted from its original target in an unintentional miss” (Hazelton 30). In the drone strikes in Yemen, even President Hadi admits that there are accidental civilian deaths (Terrill 22). But whether ground troops are used, whether manned aerial vehicles are used, or whether drones are used, there will always be a possibility for collateral damage and civilian deaths. However, President Hadi also admits that “Yemen’s air force cannot bomb accurately at night, but US drones do not have any problems doing so” (Terrill 22).

Drones are wartime weapons the United States government uses to fight the War on Terror. Officially known as unmanned aerial vehicles, this type of aircraft plays a vital role in protecting the United States, as well as many other countries around the world. Although there are multiple drones owned by the United States government, the MQ-9 Reaper and MQ-1B Predator drones are the most predominantly used drones; General Atomics Aeronautical Systems manufacture both aircrafts.

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

Technology is something that has advanced significantly in recent years, allowing for a lot of innovations and advancements in fields such as business, the medical field, science, and many more. With these advancements in technology, however, have also been advancements in warfare, including the invention and use of drones in warfare. This is the challenge the reader is faced with when looking at this particular case study. It involves a Senator who supports President’s Obama’s increased use of drones in warfare, but is not sure whether or not to continue with this opinion, or when enough is enough. The Senator sees both advantages and disadvantages of using drones in warfare, and the reader is asked to pretend to be a researcher and advisor with a team for this Senator. The reader is tasked with examining this issue, and determining whether or not the Senator should work to increase U.S. spending on drone soldiers. The correct argument would be that the Senator should not work to increase U.S. spending on drone soldiers. Increased spending on drone activity by the U.S. would only entice terrorists and other countries to develop and use potentially dangerous drones as well, as many would see drones as a threat. In addition, the detrimental mental and moral affects that drone operators experience, along with the potential for more civilians to be killed (which has often been the case) by making war distant and less personal with the

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