Drones Pros And Cons Research Paper

The basic reason for the US to use drones at all is to weaken the terrorist state and maintain security, but drone bombings have not achieved this task. In fact, the use of drones may be

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,

Drones are a better alternative to traditional methods of war because they kill less civilians, are legal under international law, and also that they do not create more terrorists than they kill. These facts will prove that older methods of war such as mortars, and bombs pale in comparison to the drone and the effect they have and will continue to have in the war on terror.

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

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 August of 2012 an engineer from Yemen by the name of Faisal bin Ali Gaber, lost his cousin and brother-in-law to a drone strike that was sent with no warning to the town. The CIA and the US military had been using the deadly and lethal drones for well over a decade, also resulting in a death a few weeks prior to the incident in Yemen. The US government notices and has taken steps in trying to reduce their attack numbers, but the strikes were not eliminated fully, still resulting in more deaths.The drone usage should have stricter regulations to reduce the attacks by the US military, not only do they take innocent lives, they also cost a fortune and are being used as killer weapons without restrictions.

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

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.

I think William Saletan put it best when he compared the use of drones by the United States to laparoscopic surgery. He stated, “They minimize the entry wound and the risk of infection.” In other words, using drones are more efficient than using manned aircraft and troops on the ground. When people look at the total amount of civilian casualties which occurred since we started using drones, they would see that drones have caused fewer civilian deaths and more militant deaths compared to other means.

There has been a long debate about drone strikes. Some people believe that we should stop drone strikes and others believe we should continue drone strikes. We should do drone strikes because it keeps the United States safer from terrorist networks in the world and Drones kill less than any other military weapon.

In a span of hours, a Reaper can wipe out a terrorist alcove, and as described by Jeff Davis, a pentagon spokesman, “A senior leader of the group, Noureddine Chouchane, and 48 other Islamic State fighters were killed” (Thomas 3). A precise drone strike can wipe out dozens of hostiles, and prevent the need for land based forces to enter the conflict and endanger themselves. The drones also save on the manpower and strategic planning needed to coordinate a ground assault, getting the job done quickly. Drones also add a new dimension of tactics to battles, involving much safer air vehicles to perform bombing runs. On the other hand, drones aren’t free, and are far from it.

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

I believe Drone strikes should continue abroad. True, there aresome negatives about it, but there are plenty of positives to it too. The U.S. can benefit a lot from this and it’s a safer alternative.

Drones can become an invasion of privacy. It can invade privacy through data, and behavioral privacy (Clarke, 2.1). Drones are going to have the power to save more data about individuals with their wide range of storage space and the ease of access to gain continuous surveillance of strangers. Drones provide easy access to record trends and secret locations. Therefore individual privacy can easily be invaded because the whole figure of the body can be examined and a hacker could pursue the attempts of creating that person again by using those biometrics. It would lead to false identification. The behavioral privacy gives anyone the ability to act however they desire to move without observation (Clarke, 2.2) which means that with fewer limitations on drone use, it is just increasing the odds of privacy being invaded. The close monitoring of another individual(s) could be a terrorist's best method to create a plan from following those trends, close monitoring and manipulating every move. Drone attacks targeting terrorists that also result in the death of innocent civilians risk turning potential allies into enemies. Drone strikes promote terrorism by encouraging angry citizens to join militant groups, not because they support a radical ideology but out of a desire for revenge (Gerdes 30). These attacks compel anyone who values their right to privacy to stand up for high

Drone strikes prevent us from gaining valuable intel that we get from raids. Unlike manned raids, drone strikes are unable to scout the site in detail. As a result, they are not able to search for information from laptops and phones, that can be utilized to uncover information regarding other members, locations, and future activity. According to the Research and Development Corporation “A successful raid will net human and material intelligence that can flesh out the picture of the enemy network, and thus enable development of a comprehensive strategy that will bring a lasting conclusion to the battle.” In essence, drone strikes can never be effective because no plan to end the war on terrorism has been put into effect. What this means is that once the drone finds its target it also destroys information about who will succeed him. As a result, we can never truly eradicate terrorism by means of drone strikes. The Obama administration avoids taking steps to gathering information. There doesn’t seem to be an actual plan regarding the future of using drone strikes to end terrorism. If the