Drones Dbq

Even during testing, drones only hit within the expected region, 50% of the time, and in reality this percentage could be lowered by uncontrollable forces, such as weather (Chris Cole, 2014). Drones may have better accuracy and lower civilian kill rate than some other weapons, but that does not justify why drones are safe and should be used limitlessly. With people falsely persuaded that drones are “risk free”, the military is less likely to send lethal force, resulting in the United States dragging a longer and less aggressive warfare (Chris Cole, 2014)

Collateral damage is a immoral justification for downplaying the killing of innocent people -- those of which UAVs still contribute to. That said, there is data to show that UAVs cause less collateral damage than traditional warfare technologies, but they may, at the same time, make war seem similar to a computer game, risk free and easy to pull the trigger. This leads me to consider the possibility that there is a lower threshold for their use and increased inclination for UAVs to proliferate and, perhaps, provoke a state of war. For obvious reasons (UAV pilots operating from hundreds or thousands of miles away), there’s less risk of injury and death to our soldiers’ lives, which may have an affect on the impetus to start a war.

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,

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

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

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

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

After the terror attack of September 11, the U.S. began using drones to help fight the war on “terrorist.” The use of drones has secured the safety of our country to a certain extent. People claim that drone strikes are useful weapons in war because it kills the enemy without putting soldiers in danger. According to the article “At Issue: Targeted Strikes” by Staff, P. states, “Proponents credit drone strikes with the killing of many of top commanders of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and argue that they are a legal form of self defense. ” The benefit of this is that U.S. soldiers do not have to step foot in unfriendly locations, where they will be exposing themselves to danger. The United States favors drone because “One advantage of drones is that they can be deployed for long periods

Is safe to use drone in war and use them here in the United States to protect us? I believe that it is safe to us drones in warfare because it saves people lives. The use of drones in war may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing to use. Over the course of this paper I will show you what all drones are good for and some of where they are not the greatest. I hope I will be a get help to the side that I am trying to show the positive 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

Efficiency in war comes with immunity, “Ideas about killing from ever greater distance, with ever increasing force and with ever more protection for those involved are as old as warfare itself (Shane Riza. Two-Dimensional).” Modern day remote drones are able to neutralize targets more efficiently than ever before, they can be used to find a specific target or targets are take them out from the sky with a single missile instead of several men and hundreds of bullets. Drones are controlled from bases typically in Nevada where the men and women controlling the drones can control the drone’s aim and movements my centimeters. Making them very accurate and precise when it comes to targeting specific individuals or groups. Drones are the cheapest sector of the government spendings in the United States. According the the analysts/writers of ProCon.org, the U.S. military’s drone program only makes up about one percent of the annual defense budget, approximately $5 billion. Compared to a single F-35 JSF (Joint Strike Force) program costs about $9.7 billion and costs anywhere from $18,000 to $169,000 an hour to operate, which is six-to-42 times more expensive. Even with all of the benefits and efficiencies to drones, they are still legal under international law and the laws of

In reality armed drones (even with the highest civilian casualty estimates) have a civilian to terrorist casualty ratio of 1 to 3. This is better any other alternative to attack the terrorists. In some cases without drone the only other option would be to not do anything at all, because it would just cost to

Empirical studies of targeted killings and civilian casualties in counterinsurgency and counterterrorism show that drone strikes may obtain either of the following two outcomes:

Opponents argue that by removing one of the key restraints to warfare – the risk to one’s own forces – unmanned systems make undertaking armed attacks too easy and will make war more likely. Evidence is beginning to emerge that it is the persistent presence of UAVs sitting over remote villages and towns simply looking for ‘targets of opportunity’ that may be leading to civilian casualties. The CIA oversees drone strikes as part of counterterrorism operations, but US officials refuse to discuss the program publicly. According to a tally by the nonpartisan New America Foundation, since 2004 there have been more than 260 US drone strikes in Pakistan, which the foundation estimates killed between 1,600 and 2,500 people. Not everyone feels comfortable with all this. Critics say that the legal and

War is and has always been the worst option for resolving any kind of conflict. But until recent years wars always had a personal element in them. The wars required actual boots on the ground which meant that there would be many casualties on both sides. However, this changed with the introduction of drone technology because it enabled one nation to remotely control their weapons and thus not risk their lives in the war. Nations are now able to fight their wars remotely. Proponents of using military drones argue for the targeted use of drones to kill highly dangerous terrorists. Opponents claim that the drone attacks kill too many innocent civilians to justify them.