Game Of Drones Research Paper

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

Every drone strike is a situation in determining whether the targets are civilians or military personal. There are multiple cases where many air strike victims were misinterpreted to being either enemy militia or target suspects due to a drone’s lack of displaying a clear image of its surroundings and a limited angle view

Following the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 President Bush inspired the term War on Terror that expressed the fight against terrorist groups. Subsequently, the use of armed aerial drones has become the United States signature attack for counter terrorism. After the attack the Bush administration began the target killing of suspects involved in terrorist attacks (Rowman& Littlefield 2016 p.13). A variation of target killing is signature strikes in which suspected militants and anyone considered a “possible” suspect is targeted based on their behavioral characteristics. In the case of a signature strike the target is unknown. Although drones are not new, the emergence of armed drones remains the topic of many debates. The application

Are military drones really necessary to fight terrorism? Is it the only way to resolve this issue? Drone technology appears to be increasingly popular as the need of “self-protection” against terrorists becomes more urgent. It is fair to conclude that drones are somewhat efficient. However, plentiful of instances and studies have proved otherwise. The usage of military drones promotes terrorism, violates international laws, and invades privacy. They are harmful rather than useful to our society.

One hot summer evening in 2009, in a small village in the remote Pakistani tribal agency of south Waziristan, a pair of hellfire missiles fired from an unmanned predator drone slammed in a house, killing the chief of the Pakistani Taliban. Now imagine looking up into the bright blue sky all around the world realizing what only a few people do; drones are up there and are keeping a watchful eye on Americas interests. Governments are using unmanned drones as a way to successfully carry out dangerous missions without having boots on the ground in harm’s way. The impact of drones on the world have grown exponentially over the course of a few years, with the future in sight more and more information must be known about

Strikes conducted by remotely piloted aircraft may undermine counterterrorism efforts or enhance them depending on the nature of the violence, the precision with which it is applied, or the intentionality attributed to it. (Kalyvas, 2006; Downes, 2007; Kocher et al., 2011) . Existing research has studied the effects of coercive airpower, (Pape, 1996; Horowitz and Reiter, 2001) , targeted killings (Jaeger, 2009; Jordan, 2009; Johnston, 2012; Price, 2012) and civilian victimization (Kalyvas, 2006; Lyall, 2009; Condra and Shapiro, 2012), but social scientists have conducted little empirical analysis of the effects of drone strikes.

In the world we live in today, technology has made huge advances in nearly every aspect of our daily lives. The introduction of iPhones, two-day shipping, and cashier-less checkouts are just some of the features we have grown accustomed to today that was pretty much nonexistent for the average person a few decades ago. Halfway around the globe, technology is making strides in another area that is not too apparent in how we handle our daily lives: modern warfare. The United States in the last decade or so has depended heavily on unmanned aerial vehicles, more commonly known as drones, to target terrorist combatants. While the use of drones in warfare has many attractive features compared to its alternatives, until there is more accountability and its many faults are addressed, the United States drone program needs to be readdressed and if necessary, temporarily halted as a go-to method of warfare in foreign counties.

The U.S. government has received a lot of condemnation from individuals, local and international community on its use of drone strikes as a mode of fighting terrorism. A lot of questions have cropped up on the effectiveness of the drone strikes, and the fact they’re going against the international human rights and laws-of-war. Despite the advantages associated with the use of the program, investigations from different studies have revealed the demerits outweigh the merits of the use of the program.

In today’s day and age, the fear of terrorism is not only a common sentiment, but is also a rising subject of debate. In order to keep troops out of harm’s way, the United States has looked for alternate means of combatting terrorist organizations. Since September 11, 2001 the United States has relied heavily on its men and women in uniform to prevent terrorism abroad. Technology of today and the use of intelligence offer the United States alternate means of addressing terrorism. For instance, drone strikes were called by former US CIA director Leon Panetta, “the only game in town in term of confronting or trying to disrupt the Al Qaeda leadership” (ODLE, 2013). With the use of typology, socioeconomic assistance, drones, diplomatic engagement and enhanced airline security services, the use of military force is not the only way to prevent terrorism.

He then makes a concluding argument that although the benefit of the Use of Drones is stated by the US officials, it is clear that the Use of drone is a bleach of international laws and creates a bad precedent of the United States, violating and ignoring state sovereignty of those states in question. He question the notion that the United States are a global police, asking, who decided what state should be a global police and the US justification of drone attacks on non-war zones. Himes, further questions the type of precedence the US sets for other states who are faced with the same challenge of terrorism (Himes, K. R. (2016, Drones and the ethics of targeted killings, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 212

According to Jeffrey H. Smith and John B. Bellinger III for politico.com magazine “Throughout the 20 the century the United States, more than any other country, championed the development of the international law of armed conflict. But in this century many nations accuse the United States of abandoning that leadership by using drones to conduct hundreds of targeted killings of terror suspects in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere, in what they see as a violation of international law. And now, with the world watching, President Obama may decide to expand the use of drones to Iraq to counter the advances of the militant group Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)” (SMITH, BELLINGER , "Mr. President, We Need Rules for Drones - POLITICO Magazine"). With this growing operation it also comes with it criticism where individuals and nations argues that the United States Government has given itself the power and

Since Barack Obama’s inauguration, there have been about 2,500 people killed by U.S. drone strikes. Approximately 320 of the death count above includes civilians. This shows how the majority of drone attacks have been effective in having killed almost 2,180 terrorists. According to Barack Obama, “Dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers and

Drones in warfare are used to target the suspect and take out the suspect without anybody knowing, but if these drones target the wrong person, then that ends up being inefficient. The drone strikes can target individuals why even may not be the suspect that they are looking for. On record, the drones kill large numbers of civilians and can traumatize the local population. According to a meta study, between 8 and 17% of all people killed in drone strikes are civilians.(source k) On another report, between 174 civilians and 1,047 civilians have been killed in pakistan, yemen, and somalia. According to 130 interviews with victims and witnesses of drone strikes by researchers from stanford and new york university, people who live in the affected areas experience harm beyond death and physical injury and report to hear drones 24/7 hours a day. (source k) According to clive stafford smith, director of human rights, says these people live in constant fear. The drones are flying 24/7, putting fear in the hearts of women and children, making people restless. Us americans have to put our feet into their shoes. If we were monitored by drones 24/7 and be scared if there would be a drone at anytime, we would call this an act of terrorism too. In the two sets of classified documents obtained by nbc news states that 114 drone strikes in

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