Drones : Can We Develop A Humane System?

It has been proven, and supported by facts that older, and/or more traditional methods of war such as mortars, or bombs do a larger amount of collateral damage historically, and in modern warfare. Since the September llth, terrorist attacks in 2001 drone strikes have only claimed 8-17% of civilian casualties[Source J]. Speaking of civilian casualties throughout the course of other wars such as World War II 40-67% of fatalities were civilian, and

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.

The “Unmanned: America’s Drone Wars” is a documentary that discusses more in depth what are the effects of drone strikes on the society, victims and their families. It shows a story of killing innocent children like Tariq and his younger cousin who were hit by a drone strike on their way to a soccer match. In Tariq’s case there was an

When a drone is put out on a Mission to make the world a better place and rid areas of terrorism, there is no chance of a US casualty. Not to mention the places where we use drones such as Yemen and Pakistan are notorious for capturing and torturing enemies (Byman 32-43). In the article “Good Bomb, Good Bomb!” the story of a drone saving one particular soldier is told. The soldier was under enemy mortar fire when a hell storm strike rained upon the enemy and saved the soldier’s life.

In recent years, the number of terrorist attacks have increased since the use of drones. One terrorist attempted to blow up an American airliner in 2009, and another tried to blow up Times Square with a car bomb in 2010 (Source K). Both had stated that drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia motivated them to do this (Source K). A picture drawn by Paresh shows a drone dropping a bomb near a civilian; the next day, the victim rises from the grave, bringing with them radicalism and anti-americanism (Source E).

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

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.

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,

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

The use of drones for carrying out military attacks is an important current topic. While keeping our soldiers safe is a primary concern, sparing the lives of civilians and limiting the destruction of the local infrastructure is another concern from not only a rebuilding point of view, but also from an ethical point of view. In the article “The Drone Wars: International Law Will Not Make Them Humane” the authors discuss the history of technological advances in warfare and provide details of the factors that have keep these advances under control. This article was co-authored by two individuals, Arthur Herman who is a historian and John Yoo who is a law professor. Through the use of examples from history detailing the use of technology in warfare,

The 9/11 attacks killed 2,996 people and injured over 6,000. According to the U.S. State Department’s annual Country Report on Terrorism 2015, 28,328 people around the world were victims of terrorists in that year. By killing terrorists with targeted drone strikes, the U.S. military disrupts and slows down terrorist organizations. In the War on Terror, it is difficult to determine how successful drone strikes have been. However, if we did nothing to fight or stop the terrorists they would be able to recruit, grow, and attack without fear. Despite potential downsides, drone strikes need to continue. It is impossible to estimate how many terrorist attacks have been stopped or how many lives have been saved due to successful drone attacks, but imagine the devastation of unrestrained terrorist

In the world we live in, people are consumed by violence and war as nations conflict to achieve victory and change. However, these changes come with a price, the lives of innocent people and the destruction of their homes. Because of this, massive amounts of innocent lives account for casualties. Thus, the controversy behind it causes a lot of debate between whether or not the amount of collateral damage allowed by the Rules of Engagement should be greater or lesser. Some argue that the insurgents of war the United States are fighting are only trying to camouflauge themselves among the non-combatant civilians only to get away with their crimes against us. On the other hand, the opposition argues that killing these innocent people only results in more distance in

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

The term “Collateral Damage” is a term widely used since the Vietnam War, but its principles have spanned history. This concept, from King Herod’s decree that all young boys be killed in his attempt to kill baby Jesus, to more recent examples such as the airstrikes on ISIS, is widely accepted. Most people justify the practice through the concept that the “ends justify the means” and I agree. However, I cannot ignore the dehumanization that occurs when referring to innocent humans as collateral damage.

A central theme in the book is examining the effect that the ruthless and unsympathetic drone strikes have in creating enemies of those tribal societies that under other circumstances would be neutral in the war against literalist terrorist organizations. Ahmed explains how these strikes not only lead to the massive amounts of innocent people, but that they also lead to trauma and resentment among the survivors who stage acts of retaliation which leads to more violence on behalf of the US military  - creating a brutal pattern of violence and oppression. For example, in one section, Ahmed describes an interview with Osama bin Laden in which he is quoted as saying, “If killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, let history witness that we are terrorists,” and in which bin Laden asserts that innocent Muslim civilians are being killed by the enemies of Islam; therefore the killing of their innocent civilians is justified, which he claims is “valid both religiously and logically.”  This framework works in tandem with the concepts that we have been examining in class