Is Drone Strikes Against Terrorism?

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

The history of drones goes all the way back to World War I. The first drones that were used by the U.S. military were used in 1914-1918. The drone was called Kettering Aerial Torpedo and it was able to carry a 180 pound payload of explosives. Although this drone was never operational in war, this set up the future for other drones. The next time drones have seen a lot of use was during the cold war era. During the cold war era U.S made a drone called SD-2 Overseer

Byman’s tone in this article can be described as defensive. In his argument, Byman attempts to refute the arguments of many Americans that maintain that drones should be eliminated. This is demonstrated in Byman’s response to public criticism that using drones creates more terrorists. He states, “critics...

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

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

The 9/11 attacks killed 2,996 people and injured over 6,000. According to the U.S. State Department’s annual Country Report on Terrorism 2015, 28,328 people around the world were victims of terrorists in that year. By killing terrorists with targeted drone strikes, the U.S. military disrupts and slows down terrorist organizations. In the War on Terror, it is difficult to determine how successful drone strikes have been. However, if we did nothing to fight or stop the terrorists they would be able to recruit, grow, and attack without fear. Despite potential downsides, drone strikes need to continue. It is impossible to estimate how many terrorist attacks have been stopped or how many lives have been saved due to successful drone attacks, but imagine the devastation of unrestrained terrorist

Drones are not harmless robots, they can be used to drop bombs and even deliver drugs. In May, a man was arrested for trying to fly his drone over the White House fence and another man was arrested last week for flying one into the U.S. open (CNN). Drones could start to be used as suicide bombers, they have the camera all that is needed is a timed explosive. The dangers that drones pose

Shortly after September 11, 2001, former president George W. Bush declared an international “war on terror.” He then sent troops to threatening countries such as Afghanistan; these troops personally conducted operations in order to honorably defend our country. Fast forward eight years and insert current president Barack Obama who continues the campaign against terrorism with a different approach. Instead of using real soldiers on the ground to fight terrorism he is essentially using robots. Obama’s counter-terrorism approach consists of targeted drone strikes where UAV’s are used to assassinate suspected leaders of terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda. Meanwhile these strikes don’t always work, and they can hurt innocent

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.

Terrorism is extremely sensitive subject, and rightfully so. I believe the United States has attempted to help form some form of defense in order to combat the growing threat of terrorism. Although I agree something must be done, I tend to disagree with the strategy. Yet, I will admit I really do not know what I would do if I was in a leadership positions and was forced to make a decision or come up with a plan. One such problem was spoken about by the NPR, in the debate about the US Drone policy. In one manner, Drones provide a safe way for the killing of dangerous individuals without ever putting a US solider in danger. However, Critics are likely to point out these Drone Strike occasionally have civilian causalities. My point simply being

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

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

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

Surprisingly, some political scientists, moral philosophers, and weapons specialists conclude the use of unmanned, armed aircrafts offer moral advantages over almost any other tool of warfare (Dozier, 2013). “I had ethical doubts and concerns when I started looking into this,” stated Bradley J. Strawser, a former Air Force officer and an assistant professor of philosophy at the Naval Postgraduate School (Eickenberg, 2013). Strawser concluded, after researching a concentrated study of remotely piloted vehicles, that using drones to go after terrorists is not only ethically acceptable, but may also be ethically necessary. This is due to the drones abilities to efficiently identify enemy combatants and strike with absolute precision (Eickenberg, 2013). Strawser questioned, “You have to start by asking, as for any military action, is the cause just” (Eickenberg, 2013)? Therefore, Strawser went on to further back up his opinion by stating, “all the evidence we have so far suggests that drones are better at both identifying the terrorist and avoiding collateral damage than anything else we have” (Eickenberg, 2013). From the standpoint of a military professional who has explored both the negative and positive aspects embodying drones, the positives simply outweigh the negatives.