Informative Essay On Drones Research Paper

Byman continues with this argument, stating that drones achieve their intended goal without risking American lives. Because drones only require a remote control to pilot, they do not put a member of the US Air Force at risk. This not only reduces the amount of military deaths in foreign countries, but it allows drones to travel to places that are deemed too dangerous for actual US pilots. Byman states that in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, “the government exerts little or no control over remote areas, which means that it is highly dangerous to go after militants hiding out there. Worse yet, in Pakistan and Yemen, the governments have at times cooperated with militants” (Byman 2). The majority of the time, sending in an actual military force is simply too dangerous. Instead of sending people, the US military can send robots.

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.

In President Obama’s speech on drone policy, given on May 23, 2013 in Washington D.C., he asserts, “dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers and operatives have been taken off the battlefield... Simply put, those [drone} strikes have saved lives.” Many American’s support this view. According to a July 18, 2013 Pew Research survey, 61% of Americans supported drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia (Drake). However, this belief that drone strikes make the United States safer by decimating terrorist networks around the world is widely contested. An opposing viewpoint is that these strikes create more terrorist than they kill. There is a common misperception that drones are precise, killing only the target and entourage. According to a meta-study of drone strikes, between 8 to 17% of all people killed are civilians (Sing). People who see their loved ones injured or killed in drone

Though military personnel lives are safer with the presence of drones, many who oppose military drones claim that they have increased the death of civilians and do not create safer environments for civilians (Terrill 22). However, drones have been proved to decrease the deaths of civilians due to the technology that allows them to pinpoint their target and strike at that specific target rather than bomb an area that the target is in. For example, in Yemen where many drone strikes have occurred, “civilian death figures… are ‘in the single digits’” (Terrill 22). Drones are claimed to have less collateral damage than the collateral damage caused by manned aerial vehicles. “They strike quickly, and the missile can be diverted from its original target in an unintentional miss” (Hazelton 30). In the drone strikes in Yemen, even President Hadi admits that there are accidental civilian deaths (Terrill 22). But whether ground troops are used, whether manned aerial vehicles are used, or whether drones are used, there will always be a possibility for collateral damage and civilian deaths. However, President Hadi also admits that “Yemen’s air force cannot bomb accurately at night, but US drones do not have any problems doing so” (Terrill 22).

In our country we see aircrafts in the sky every day and rarely fear an attack from above, however, for people in Middle Eastern countries this is not the case. In countries such as Somalia and Yemen they live in constant fear of dying from a bomb being dropped from above. Usually, Americans see themselves as heroes and view Middle Eastern groups as terrorists for these Middle Eastern people though, Americans are the terrorists. This essay will research the United States use of drone strikes in Middle Eastern countries, using scholarly articles to portray what a drone is, the types of drones the US uses, a history of their use, the legality of strikes on foreign soil, and their overall use in the war on terror in order to persuade readers that

Drones are not always the best way to go, and are most of the time an unnecessary and non-profit endeavor. This is exemplified by the fact that from 2002 to 2014 only 2 percent of target fatalities by drones have been important militants ("Should the United"). The other 98 percent have been unimportant and unnecessary targets that were not a serious threat to the U.S. This means that the 98 percent that were unnecessary were just a extra waste of resources and did not make enough of a significant difference to justify the endeavor. Also, drone strikes are not effective because they have been proven to be inaccurate. Out of 114 drone strikes issued by the CIA in the countries of Pakistan and Afghanistan, 26 of the drone strikes targeted groups categorized as “other militants.” This means that the affiliation of the targeted groups could not be conclusively determined ("Should the United"). In conclusion, these strikes were with no special goal in mind, only executed to potentially harm terrorist groups. This in essence is another waste of resources which can have unknown consequences. In these types of drone strikes the U.S could be eliminating unimportant targets, or worse, they could inadvertently harm friendly factions or neutral civilians in the region of the strikes. This would again turn more individuals away from the U.S cause by building on the hate against the U.S that

Drone opponents need to remember ground wars pose a greater threat to civilians than drones do. There are multiple tactics the military uses such as land mines, bombs, raids, and firefights which may unintentionally kill or injure a civilian. These tactics are more likely to be harmful to civilians than drones because ground wars are taking place in communities where militants live within

Drone strikes promote terrorism. The attacks on selected targets may cause collateral damage, resulting in killing civilians. Thus, it is possible that the strike could turn potential allies into enemies.(Mothana)

In the article “Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drones Strikes Abroad”, it contain information on both the reasons why and why we shouldn’t allow the use of military drones anymore. Drones or also known as a UAVs (Unmanned aerial vehicles) have been all over the news as of late because of the controversy about the use of them. Attack or military drones have been used as far back as the late 1840’s to carry out specific mission that may involve stealth over the enemy. Now that technology has improved engineers have found hundreds of ways to make stealth drones in different shapes and sizes. Some of the people who side with the drones say that “Drones have decimated terrorist networks abroad via precise strike with minimal civilian

Ever since 2001 the united states has been using drones known as uavs and predators to locate or destroy terrorists and their out posts, before we used drones it was very expensive to find terrorists as we had to use satellites until we built the Gnat or known as the Predator drone and shortly after the drone was made it was put to work. The Predator drone was used in the mission to find Osama Bin Laden after the september 11 attacks. This adds to the long-time debate over Drone use, there are pros and cons to the use of Drone strikes some believe we should use Drone strikes yet others believe it's ‘’unsafe and has a playstation mentality’’. We should use drones because Drone strike destroy terrorist networks all

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

Scott Shane quotes Micah Zenko in his article when he says “… a total of eight Americans have been killed in drone strikes. Of those, only one, the American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who joined Al Qaeda in Yemen and was killed in 2011, was identified and deliberately targeted” (Shane, Zenko 3). Shane is correct when he says that drones should not target Americans, but he fails to mention why they were targeted. These eight Americans were killed because, they were engaged in hostile activity towards the United States. Awlaki was a part of Al Qaeda and was actively plotting to take down the United States. The other seven Americans were not innocent, these people were killed in the blast of drone strikes that were targeting enemy combatants. They were not hostages, but they were still in the immediate vicinity of they hostiles. The other seven were just like Awlaki, they were there to join one of the terrorist groups we are at war with. That is the only way that those citizens were that close to those enemies. The second argument against the use of drones is that drone pilots are at risk of developing psychological disorders. Lindsay Warrior, the author of “Drones and Targeted Killing”, says that “[m]uch of the discussion surrounding drones emphasizes the fact that their use reduces the risk of U.S.

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

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

As drones attempt to counteract further terrorist actions they have killed some leaders that were high in power. As high power leaders are killed the family members of those who have fallen become motivated to join terrorist groups to avenge their loved ones. In some cases innocent civilians who are killed in the line of fire also have family members that are then motivated to avenge their lost loved one. As these leaders are killed, new leaders take their place. Even though some aren’t motivated to join, some family members and citizens support the terrorist to fight Americans for their lives.