Drones War Pros And Cons

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

Drone strikes are incredibly damaging to the United States’ international image and prestige; without a step away from remote killing, the leadership on high will continue to be met with resistance when attempting to establish military ties with countries that have a clear view on the violations and atrocities associated with drone warfare.

Although lots of deaths still happen unintendedly they are reduced by a great fraction. Approximately $5 billion are used in the whole drone program, which equals 1% of the annual military budget (Motherboard. N. p., 2017. Web). When you hear the word cheaper you assume it means less quality, but in this case, cheaper equals the same or more quality plus fewer risks of

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

Where do we draw the line between terroristic acts and essential need to eradicate terrorists? While there is no definitive definition of terrorism, according to Professor Cindy Combs, in order to constitute an act of terrorism, the aforementioned act must follow a strict set of stringent guidelines. The act must be, carried out against innocent people, intended to frighten the larger audience, be an act of violence, and have political motivation.

Many people are not aware that drones have been used domestically for a number of years. According to Charles Scaliger in an article title "Drones Over America" from The New American, he states:

Imagine living with fear on a day to day basis with the expectation of a missile having the capability of obliterating where you’re standing right now by a single man on a computer in a matter of seconds without the slightest warning. The use of drone strikes in military operations is unacceptable. Accidental aftermath and the murder of innocent lives outweigh the desire to kill a few radical terrorists which can be achieved with ground soldiers lessening the amount of innocent bystanders killed in the process. To the stop this recklessness it is necessary that all drone strikes are ceased until suitable policies are implemented. Although drone strikes play a key role in fighting the war against terrorism the fact that military is striking fear into the hearts of the natives affecting their day to day lives in a negative way in reality makes us the actual terrorists.

However, the pros outweigh the cons too much for the use of autonomous drones. There is to many what ifs surrounding them. What if they accidentally kill someone they weren’t supposed to. Or if they had a malfunction and started to friendly fire on American soldiers in the battlefield. What if they were hacked and were used in acts of terror. Any type of weaponry with that much firepower is going to be sought after everyone. That means people with the best intentions and people with the worst intensions. With as much good as autonomous drones are capable of doing, they could very well end up costing us

You need to only watch as drones are employed by law enforcement, the military, organizations, and individuals and there are significant issues that rise. Similar to the stingray technology law enforcement agencies utilize and the militaries drone usage, drones and robots have revolutionized how espionage and warfare are conducted. The price to operate a drone near continuously compared to manned aircraft alone is a worthy reason for investment into drone programs, as according to Dowd (2013)“A typical Predator drone, for instance, costs $4.5 million, while an F-35 costs $159 million, an F-22 $377 million, and a B-2 nearly $2 billion. Moreover, training UCAV controllers costs less than a tenth what it costs to train traditional combat aviators”. At the decrease in expenses offered by the usage of drones in warfare when compared to manned aircraft, the drones have a massive advantage both pricewise, long term viability, endurance, and in terms of precision. Why would you stick with the antique technology that requires a squishy human to man it for a limited period of time when you could instead utilize a drone that will continue operating until the drone is shot down, is no longer required to operate there any longer, or malfunctions. A semi-autonomous drone that cant operate on its own until a human

“If we continue to develop our technology without wisdom or prudence, our servant may prove to be our executioner.” Theses dark and foreboding words from U.S. Army General Omar Bradley serve as solemn reminder of the impact that modern technology has had on war and how we wage it. But Bradley was referring to the controversy revolving around nuclear weapons in the nineteen-fifties. In world of today; however, the controversy lies in the use of drones. These remotely controlled planes can be used to spy and, most questionably, to kill. Some argue that these drones save American lives by separating the soldier from the battlefield. Others say that this separation will lead to an unrealistic view of war and its consequences. Regardless of how they shape the world, new technologies like the drone will continue to mold the concept of war in the modern era.

Unmanned drones mask a form of modern imperialism. Since 2007 the United States government has taken the liberty to guide ethical and moral warfare pertaining to armed drones. Obamas administration has steadfastly created policy to justify when and where they can use armed drones. Their policies contain immense grey areas and allow the US to act as a global engager of informal war. As a member of the nation that makes these dominating decisions, it is important for me to critique the nation’s policy for possible implications and ulterior motives. Specifically, the economic objective and impact of drone warfare policy is one that I do not stand by.

Some issues are that drone strikes are too broad and potential misuse of the drones in our future has become a concern. Addressing the broad strikes by drones, Robert Grenier, who headed the counterterrorism center between 2004and 2006, stated that attacks needed to be “targeted much more finely” and only used on “targets that have been tracked, monitored and are at a place where an attack is feasible. In other words we should not use a drone to attack a hospital or a school, even though a target maybe there. As for the issue with the misuse of drones, I think people are concerned that with our continued use and more frequent use of drones, others may follow suit and then we run the risk of our liberties being infringed upon. To this I believe we always have an upside and a downside to the types of weaponry that we use to ensure our freedoms and the freedoms of others. You must take the good with the bad. With this issue I think it remains to be seen what happens with drones and their use in the

The automation of the modern battlefield and the proliferation of unmanned systems to conduct war is a reality and imaginably it will only increase in the future. As these new weapon systems make their way to the battlefield it will require leaders to decide how to responsibly employ these systems and how often they will be used in substitution of actual Soldiers. The benefits and effectiveness of drones cannot be denied. The use of drones does limit the exposure of American Soldiers and the accuracy of drones to kill the enemy and limit civilian casualties does and will continue to improve.

Over the course of Barack Obama’s first year in office, he authorized nearly four times as many strikes in Pakistan as George Bush did during his eight years in office. Over this time period drones have eliminated an estimated 3, 300 al Qaeda, Taliban and many other jihadist operatives. Although the use of drones has many critics because of the deaths of multiple civilians, but the use of drones and targeted killing has helped to eliminate many prominent members of terrorist organizations, some of which have carried out horrific executions and even acts of genocide, whom are threats to The United States and other allied nations, drones are also highly capable low-cost weapons that help to reduce the number of civilians and allied soldiers.

There is a lot of debate on the current use of drones in counterterrorism saying that they should not be used to kill because the drone pilot no longer experience’s war and the killing becomes casual (Holmqvist, 2013, P541). Thus, making the act of killing less emotional leaving the operator distant from the killing causing the pilot to feel numb towards killing. The other side says that these operators get to see the effects of an attack up close due to the state of art camera images that allow the operator to witness the chaos from an attack up close in excessive detail. Seeing death in this type of detail has caused drone operators to develop Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that effect ground troop in the same manner after intense combat operations. Right now, each side is being studied and the finds are still rudimentary. Other debated topics include: success rate, civilian casualties, legality, cost and the lack of human boots on the ground. Drones have provided an answer to the new high tempo of asymmetrical warfare producing success in disabling terrorist networks around the globe without the need for a large foot print that cost the United States billions of dollars and a huge occupational army. Therefore, decreasing cost and