Military Drones Research

Drones are a better alternative to traditional methods of war because they kill less civilians, are legal under international law, and also that they do not create more terrorists than they kill. These facts will prove that older methods of war such as mortars, and bombs pale in comparison to the drone and the effect they have and will continue to have in the war on terror.

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.

It was not until she found her Etagere cabinet. Standing about 7 foot tall and about 3 feet wide with a crisp dark brown wood finish. After seeing the Etagere cabinet she immediately knew that it was perfect for her home and elephants. The Etagere cabinet was brought to her home and finally was a place for her elephants, something she found joy in, to call their home within her home. The collection of Vera’s elephants grew as her family grew. Her 9 children became the fathers and mothers to 19 of her grandchildren, from there 27 great grandchildren, and 7 great great children. Vera’s elephants were seen as the one thing you can get her and she would smile from ear to ear. The elephants began to her favorite gift for her birthday, mothers day,

In recent years, drones have begun to do jobs that we didn’t think was possible. Soon, you may find a drone in front of your home, carrying the pepperoni pizza you ordered 20 minutes ago, or see drones putting out a fire in your neighborhood. Now, drones are being used as soldiers in our war against terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, these drones have caused many problems for the U.S. over the years. The use of drones fighting for us causes more problems than actually fixing them (Source A)

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

Top counterterrorist advisors from both the Bush and Obama administrations champion drone use as the most effective tool in the war on terror. They are relatively cheap, effective at killing terrorist with minimal civilian casualties. They protect US troops by preventing “boots on the ground” scenarios and ultimately make America safer. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is quoted as say, “the only game in town in terms of trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership” An important question to ask is: Are these short term advantages worth the long term repercussions. Michael J Boyle examines this question in, “The Cost and Consequences of Drone Warfare.” He first question the validity of the claim that drones are effective at killing

The main unknown and controversial discussion surrounding drone attacks is the ambiguity that coincides with who is made victim by these strikes. One of the main purposes of the military is distinguishing between combatants and innocent bystanders and as drone

After 9/11, the U.S started to implement policies intended to combat terrorism in hopes of preventing further attacks and bring those who were involved to justice. One such policy that the U.S started was to implement the heavy use of drones- unmanned aircraft capable of bombing specific targets. These drones would be controlled by a pilot remotely from the U.S, thousands of miles from where the strikes were taking place. The U.S used these drones to assassinate suspects who were believed to have been linked to terrorism as well as various targets that were deemed to be associated with terrorism, such as weapons factories. Currently, however, there is a debate on the legality, morality, and effectiveness of drones. One side sees the drones as effective at destroying targets while at the same time, minimizing civilian casualties. On the other hand, the other side believes that drones are reliable for

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

Eleven years ago, the United States Air Force launched a missile from a drone for the first time at a test range in the Nevada desert (Drone Test) . The use of armed drones has risen dramatically since 2009. Now drone strikes are almost a daily occurrence. In 2011 the use of drones continued to rise with strikes in (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia. Proponents of armed drones argue that their ability to watch and wait, with their highly accurate sensors and cameras gives increased control over when and where to strike its both increasing the chances of success and

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

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).

“Mum said my compassion would mean the death of me,” Cherry reflected bitterly, “I just never thought that she meant it literally…” Cherry had been sent to the Fire village to deal with a sudden outbreak of a disease. It wasn’t much of a concern for the more mature, healthy adults, but toddlers and young children had caught it and had already begun dying from it. As a medical ninja of the Lily village, it was her duty to deal with it. She had managed to separate those who had the disease and those suspected of having it from the other healthy people, although it had taken a few days.

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

Have you ever imagined someone you love being killed by a terrorist machine? Drones are flying machines that are used by the government for several types of jobs but mainly for warfare. By defining that the use of drones is more harmful than it is good and by refuting counter arguments that they make the military’s job safer, and by presenting claims that the use of drones cause hazardous risks, one will be persuaded that drones are dangerous.