Military Drones

The use of drones has brought an uproarious debate among both the people of the United States and the people of the world regarding whether or not drones should be sold and used by the public. Drones were first created for military use to scout and attack terrorists who plan to bring havoc to the United States of America. Ever since the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, funding for the use of drones sky-rocketed because people came to the realization that there was a need to formulate different methods of security and defense. Besides the use of security and defense, people have been developing new uses for drones. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is currently issuing rules outlining how they can be used. Ever since drones have hit the shelves for consumers to buy, more and

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.

The general argument made by Daniel Byman in his 2013 article “Why Drones Work: The Case for Washington’s Weapon of Choice” is that the United States should continue the use of drones. More specifically, he argues that drones are a “necessary instrument” for combating terrorism due to their effectiveness (Byman 32). He writes that drones do their jobs “remarkably well” by offering a “low-risk way” to target threats of national security (Byman 32). In addition, he writes that, in most cases, drones are the “most sensible” option, because they reduce the chances of civilians being “caught in the kill zone” (Byman 34, 35).  In this article, Byman is suggesting that the “critics” of drones need to realize that alternatives to drone strikes are

The CQ Researcher article “Drone Warfare” discusses the usage of UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles or, more popularly known as, “drones”. The primary focus of the article is to illustrate how the United States government is using the drones and discusses whether or not many of the drone attacks have been legal. Since the C.I.A., Central Intelligence Agency, has such influence over what goes on, they have been able to declare the drone strikes as “lawful acts of war and national self-defense in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.” While some people accept this,whether they believe it as fact or simply accept it as a national defense claim, critics have said “the intelligence agency's

After the terror attack of September 11, the U.S. began using drones to help fight the war on “terrorist.” The use of drones has secured the safety of our country to a certain extent. People claim that drone strikes are useful weapons in war because it kills the enemy without putting soldiers in danger. According to the article “At Issue: Targeted Strikes” by Staff, P. states, “Proponents credit drone strikes with the killing of many of top commanders of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and argue that they are a legal form of self defense. ” The benefit of this is that U.S. soldiers do not have to step foot in unfriendly locations, where they will be exposing themselves to danger. The United States favors drone because “One advantage of drones is that they can be deployed for long periods

Drones have been one of the most controversial Military topics in the past ten years. Drones are planes that can be controlled by someone from many miles away. In the past few years, drones have been killing terrorists in the Middle East without putting U.S. military lives in danger. The United States Military should increase use of Drones because they can go places that are unsafe for a human, and save not only a soldier’s life, but also cost less money to manufacture than supplying ground troops and air troops.

One reason why drones are such an obvious future trend is they weaken terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, and the Taliban. During President Barak Obama’s term, an estimated 3,300 terrorists have been killed including 50 senior leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban (Byman 32-43). By March 2011 33 Al Qaeda and Taliban members killed and from 1100-1800 insurgent fighters (Sluka 89). Three hundred and fifty drone strikes have been made since 2004 (Cronin 44-45). Among the terrorist casualties, one stands out. A Drone strike killed Al-Shabab, killer of 74 in a soccer stadium bombing in Uganda (Klaidman 38-44). A Drone could have prevented the bombing of the soccer stadium before it happened, but the US called off a drone strike because of the

In the article “Why Drones Work: The Case for Washington’s Weapon of Choice” by Daniel L. Byman many topics about the use and opinions of U.S. attack drones. U.S. attack drones are used in place of full raids or large bombings to take out terrorists. Most of the they the cost of an attack is greater than the drone itself. Many people have mixed feelings about the drones, but many people think that they cause many civilian casualties.

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.

United States’ military drones, mankind’s best invention, has become a nightmare for terrorists and innocent civilians and also become more controversial under Obama administration. Drones are unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), controlled by experts from several miles away or sometimes thousands of miles away. At first, drones were mainly used for surveillance, but later they were equipped with missiles. The military didn’t hesitate to equip the drones with missiles, since it would make easier for military to carry out missions. The military depends on drones more than it should by using them when it’s not necessary. This controversial issue was raised when Americans became aware of deaths and damage drones caused in Middle East. The drones are

While drones have proven to be effective at killing many terrorists, questions remain about their relative effectiveness and legality.

September 11, 2001: one of the most grueling days in the history of the United States, the biggest terrorist attack on American soil. Not only did these attacks destroy symbols of America and take the lives of innocent workers, family members, heroes, and friends, but they sparked the discussion of public safety pitted against personal security in the country. On October 7, 2001, President George W. Bush administered the first use of drones in the fight against terrorism. The controversial topic has left many Americans asking themselves the crucial question: Should the United States continue using drone strikes against terrorists? The morality and effectiveness of drones has prompted discussions in the fight against terrorism on the homefront. The United States should continue to use drone strikes to fight in the war against terrorism as it is an ethical strategy in order to save the lives of many Americans.

Drones have been used in a way that is affecting innocent civilians at home and abroad. The negative use of drones under the Obama administration and the lack of accountability is evident as Professor David Cole states: “You can't get any of the political accountability, the legal accountability, the world accountability, until there is transparency.” (US catholic 1). What this says is that there is a big lack of transparency from people very high up in the military sector. The Government has been very unclear about what happens with a drone strike and instead just tells us that drone strikes are happening. The lack of detail and lack of acknowledgement for middle east civilians is a huge problem. Without the government and military being clear with us the news of several civilian deaths from drone strikes will continue to be a major issue. The problem lies with the fact that the government also does not fully acknowledge its own drone program

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.

I think William Saletan put it best when he compared the use of drones by the United States to laparoscopic surgery. He stated, “They minimize the entry wound and the risk of infection.” In other words, using drones are more efficient than using manned aircraft and troops on the ground. When people look at the total amount of civilian casualties which occurred since we started using drones, they would see that drones have caused fewer civilian deaths and more militant deaths compared to other means.