Eye Of The Sky, The Biggest Moral Dilemma Of Drone Warfare

The US government has recently begun to send drones, silent flying machines, to counter the threat of terrorism in the Middle East, with the claim that these bombers will save lives. While some people may be swayed by these claims, stating that drones slowly weaken terrorist action, I argue that unmanned strategic bombing is inefficient, since first, they are only a bombardment, and will not be able to completely stop terrorism without invasion force, and also, their efficiency and accuracy rates are extremely low. If drones continue to be used limitlessly, instead of a defeated ISIS and al-Qaeda, the results will only be the destruction of the Middle Eastern land.

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.

The “Unmanned: America’s Drone Wars” is a documentary that discusses more in depth what are the effects of drone strikes on the society, victims and their families. It shows a story of killing innocent children like Tariq and his younger cousin who were hit by a drone strike on their way to a soccer match. In Tariq’s case there was an

Robert Greenwald’s documentary Unmanned: America's Drone War focuses on the effects of America’s drone operations on the citizens of Middle Eastern countries, such as Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan, while also offering insight into the public opinion of people in those Middle Eastern countries on America’s drone policy. The film seeks to convey that the operations carried out by the U.S.A in Middle Eastern countries are callous and irresponsible. The film features interviews from many citizens and leaders from Middle Eastern focusing on the impact that drone operations have had on families and communities, making the assertion that the majorly of those killed by American drone strikes have been nonmilitants showing, and calling for a more humanized approach to drone operations by American leaders.

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.

The military’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are able to fly in the airspace for up to 17 hours providing Soldiers, Marines, and Sailors on the ground real-time images of the enemy for 24-hours 7 days a week. They were engineered for precision and power in order to eliminate the enemy without the need of endangering friendly forces. The technological advancement of the drone has furthered America’s military agenda in multiple ways for the better, however, hundreds of civilian lives have been caught in the blast zone of these military drones. Today’s society and engineers have deemed the use of drones as morally good, but what makes killing the enemy from a remote, safe location any different than chemical warfare, especially if civilian lives

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) first made their appearance in 1919 when Elmer Sperry, who also invented the gyroscope and autopilot, attacked a captured German ship with the first UAV loaded down to with explosives(("U.s. army unmanned," 2010). At the time this was a revolutionary weapon, but if we fast forward 80 years from the time of that experiment, UAVs became a common and prolific part of the modern battlefield. Although there is little debate as to the legality of their use on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, in recent years there are been much debate as to the role they should play in the larger American declared Global War on Terror or

While the debate over the use of drones for counterterrorism efforts has intensified, the arguments, both for and against their usage, although informed by plausible logics, are supported primarily by anecdotal evidence and not by systematic empirical investigation. This lack of attention is unfortunate: unmanned aerial vehicles, and

Certain polls suggest that the average American supports the use of drones for counterterrorism efforts. What the average American doesn’t know is since 2014 the U.S. led coalition in Syria and Iraq has conducted over 13,500 strikes in Iraq and Syria. Taking innocent lives and causing destruction in already weak countries. In 1996 the first unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), was born but it wasn’t a combat drone. In Obama's years as president, he dropped 563 strikes almost ten times that of how much Bush dropped in his years, the catch is the 563 from Obama were in nonactive battlefields. In active battlefields, we have performed over 20,000 strikes. Since there are no laws on drone use it makes it easy to commit what many believe to be war crimes. Drones may seem like a good solution to terrorism, but we need a structure of law for drones and those who use them.

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.

And there are serious questions about whether American representatives have discreet civilian deaths. It can be an astonishment to discover that some ethical philosophers, political scientists and weaponries specialists that are armed, unmanned aircraft agreement that are noticeable with the moral and benefits almost any other tool of war. For their benefits in detecting targets and striking with accuracy. Ever since the drone machinists can be in observation with a target for hours or even days in advance of an air strike, they can detect the terrorists more accurately then the troops that are on the ground or the conventional pilots. They are capable to time an airstrike when the innocents are not near and it can even distract a missile after the dismissal if a child wanders into

International law regulates the relationship between nation states in the world. Violation of international law makes the whole world hazardous as the violation of national law throws a nation into social anomalies. Drones are the weapon of 21st century, the century which is marked by the development of technology. It is thought-provoking and horrifying that the international law is being questioned by the drones attack throughout the world. It is said that the target of these Unnamed Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) is the terrorist, but media reports unveiled that most of the victims are civilians, and their abodes. The civilians cannot be butcher in the name of the war on terror. However, it is seen that drones attacks have threatened the norms of sovereignty of different independent countries; it is an important matter of concern. The legitimacy of drone strikes is also questioned. Many questions regarding the drone strikes are coming in, it has made a situation of dilemma, paradox and intricacies. Thus, the jurisprudential panorama needs to be revisited to overcome the legal loopholes from the perspective of legal realism. The paper will explore the implications and long term effects of drone attacks on the international law.