Drones Go Bang Bang

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

Since the events of 9/11, drone strikes have become a tool for the United States as it fights a global war against terrorist organizations. The advantages and disadvantages of this particular counterterrorism option continue to be debated. Instead of sending in warfighters to achieve specific objectives, many argue that unmanned combat aerial vehicles provide the U.S. military and government with low-risk and low-cost options as it engages in military operations in other regions of the world. Compared with manned fighter aircraft, some of these unmanned vehicles are able to fly longer without stopping, which affords the U.S. with better intelligence collection and targeting opportunities. Even if the aircraft were shot down, there is not

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Today the use of drones has moved beyond military and recreational use and has emerged as a trending topic of conversation within both the private sector, commercial, and military realms (Bowden, 2013). Drone piloting has also become quite the topic of controversy due to military drone pilots taking non-traditional routes to achieve pilot certification. Military application has changed the landscape of foreign policy has augmented our military’s reach across the globe with the use of drones on the battlefield (Cole, 2014). As far as commercial uses drones are now augmented the way we deliver packages and cultivate vast amounts of farm (Senger, 2013). Even surveying of lands has changed with the adaptive technology drones utilize to map land features. The influx of drones in the public and private sector now has the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

In the United States, domestic drones are gaining popularity and have the potential to do many things, good or bad. The drones are publicly available for a very cheap cost and are capable installing software or devices that take live video streaming, video recording, have infrared cameras, heat sensors, GPS, sensors that detect movement, automated license plate readers, and, in the close future, facial recognition technology linked to the FBI’s biological database. These capabilities make drones either a very real threat or one of the best law enforcement technologies out

In the article “Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drones Strikes Abroad”, it contain information on both the reasons why and why we shouldn’t allow the use of military drones anymore. Drones or also known as a UAVs (Unmanned aerial vehicles) have been all over the news as of late because of the controversy about the use of them. Attack or military drones have been used as far back as the late 1840’s to carry out specific mission that may involve stealth over the enemy. Now that technology has improved engineers have found hundreds of ways to make stealth drones in different shapes and sizes. Some of the people who side with the drones say that “Drones have decimated terrorist networks abroad via precise strike with minimal civilian

Drones are an effective counter insurgency tool deployed extensively throughout the world, especially by clandestine intelligence organizations often with the help of the country’s respective Air Force. Not only do they serve as an effective weapon, they minimize human

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