Drones : Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

During Clinton’s presidency the CIA borrowed “a gangly, insect-like airplane called the RQ-1 Predator” from the Air Force which allows Clinton to view what is known as a “live drone feed” (Mazzetti 61). Some were impressed by the “insect-like” drone but felt like it would be a waste of time to sit and watch the feed. Those opposed felt that it had no use to it, but only to realize later on how great of an impact it would have for the government (Mazzetti 61). Drones would be the key weapon for a “secret war” since “it was a tool that killed quietly,” and would allow strikes in restricted areas where publicist couldn’t go (Mazzetti 99-100). This weapon created a whole new meaning behind wars and assassinations as some view them as inhuman others view it as success. Many believe citizens should have trust in the government and adhere that drones are being used to “”find, fix, and finish” terrorists” (Mazzetti 77). The CIA use of the drones makes them

Technology is changing the way humans complete certain tasks. Whether it be communicating with others, or using navigation tools for directions, technology affects everyone in some way or another. In fact, technology is changing the way our government fights wars with other countries and terrorist groups. Drones have become one of the most sought after pieces of military equipment in the last decade. They have become one of the many important tools our government uses for counterterrorism policies in the United States. Recently, these defense mechanisms have received a great deal of public attention, which has stirred up much controversy. Many people, including government officials and politicians, question the necessity and ethics of drones

Kaag and Kreps’s main concerns are that drone technology is not consistent with international laws. The reasons for the author’s beliefs is that drone technology do not adhere the principals that international laws consist of. The authors talk about jus ad bellum – the right of war, also interpreted as the right of retaliation on the basis of self-defense – and how that justification is based on false principals. The other principal that the authors feel is being misused is jus in bello – the justification (or lack thereof) to engage in a war – due to the issues with interpretation that is existent in modern warfare. The authors believe that further preventative measures need to be established to insure that drone warfare adheres to 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

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,

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.

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)

September 11 attacks marked an unprecedented development and advancement of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones. Because of their technological capabilities and strategic advantages, drones have been used by the United States government as one of the main weapons in ‘war against terrorism.’ An unmanned aircraft was first used by Elmer Sperry, creator of the gyroscope, when sinking a German captured battleship, but its usage for military purposes began after 1985 (Shaw, 2012, p. 1490). As the United States initiated the use drones against Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces, vast criticism sparked throughout the world questioning its legality under the international law. In this paper, I will focus on the

Mary Ellen O’Connell, a research professor at the Kroc, Institute, University of Notre Dame, and the Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame, tells the congressional Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs “Lawful Use of Combat Drones” that the United States is failing more often than not to follow the most important single rule governing drones: restricting their use to the battlefield. O’Connell begins her argument with by describing combat drones as battlefield weapons capable of inflicting very serious damage and being unlawful for use outside combat zones. She states that police are the proper law enforcement agents, outside these zones, and are generally required to warn before using lethal force. By failing to restrict these remote weapons systems to the battlefield the U.S. is failing to respect a basic rule that contradicts the goal of winning hearts and minds to respect the rule of law. She breaks her speech into three sections: drones as a lawful battlefield weapon, the battlefield defined, and battlefield restraints.

When I started reading Nassar Hussain and Roger Stahl’s articles about drones, I initially thought of the drones that fly up with a “go-pro” and film scenery. My mind did not even think of the military aspect, because drones have grown to be used in many ways. This reading really made me understand my privilege. It was sad to read about what the Yemeni author wrote, how much terror drones have brought into people's lives; especially because today it is a form of entertainment for Americans, but we never considered the impact it has on people who faced drone strikes. In additionally, the reading by Nassar Hussain brought up a good point, which was that drones did not have sound. They could not hear their enemy, nor the sounds around the environment

From long ago, many people have dreamed of the concept of machines fighting for and against man in battles of awesomeness and gore in the macabre cycle of war. Honor and brilliance would be awarded for the excellence of these things, or disdain, rage, and fear could shine a light over them. The use of drones of the United States for the military is controversial, as some say that it makes circumstances safer for civilians and soldiers alike, while ridding countries in agreeance of networks of terrorists and threatening militants such al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban. Others will state that drones are detrimental to the well-being of the general public and causes more terrorists to rise from the dust (Drones). Albeit there are conflicting

While drones have proven to be effective at killing many terrorists, questions remain about their relative effectiveness and legality.

Imagine a world where people did not control aircraft and don’t have to put their lives at risk. This world is coming to be a reality in recent years. Drones have been used since 2002, after 9/11, for targeted killing and have increased exponentially since. The 21st century designed killing machines have indeed saved American lives in the middle east and elsewhere, however in doing so it killed innocent people. Is something without a conscious a humane way of dealing with our problems? Drones will always be a part of our lives today and might even show up at home. What we do right now could change what the future holds for us. I am writing about drones being used in the field, and I am going

Drone warfare is the most humane and efficient way of the modern age, a safe and efficient counter to guerilla warfare. With the ability to be unmanned, stealthy, low cost, low casualty rating, and versatile armament at the drone’s disposal, drone warfare should be an active part of the US military. Although some criticism to drone warfare being inhumane, a useless resource of our technology, and past mistakes of drones before, the pros outweigh the cons of the debate.

Recently, the use of drones and other unmanned aircraft has concerned the general public. Drones today come standard with a high definition camera that some say will allow people to spy and plot out other malicious acts towards society. Large drone companies are concerned that sales will drop if the restrictions continue to rise; moreover, the ability to buy a drone is becoming much more difficult. Drone restrictions concern people who have owned drones for years and use them for recreational purposes and farming; additionally, this concerns local governments that plan to use the drones for life-saving situations.