Modern Day Promote 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.

This statement is in fact a myth, drone strikes ARE legal under United Nations Charter 51 which states the strikes are legal if allowed by the country’s government, or if the group being targeted is responsible for an act of aggression and they can’t be controlled[Source J]. Just to give some examples Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan have all been recipients of drone strikes and they all consent to these because they have terrorist organizations within their borders such as the Islamic State, and Al Qaeda.

In August of 2012 an engineer from Yemen by the name of Faisal bin Ali Gaber, lost his cousin and brother-in-law to a drone strike that was sent with no warning to the town. The CIA and the US military had been using the deadly and lethal drones for well over a decade, also resulting in a death a few weeks prior to the incident in Yemen. The US government notices and has taken steps in trying to reduce their attack numbers, but the strikes were not eliminated fully, still resulting in more deaths.The drone usage should have stricter regulations to reduce the attacks by the US military, not only do they take innocent lives, they also cost a fortune and are being used as killer weapons without restrictions.

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

The United States has been authorizing oversea drone airstrikes from quite some years now, if fact, the first strike occurred on Feb 4, 2002. The purpose and reasoning of these drones are to eliminate terrorist overseas, prevent terrorist attacks, and keep soldiers from physically hunting down terrorist in enemy territory. Two problems with the drones are how they potentially create more terrorist than they kill and how they have been brought into our own country on a much smaller and non-lethal scale. Gaining popularity, domestic drones threaten to break amendments or even pose a threat to the civilian population. On the other side, local law enforcement, companies, and even the government can receive huge benefits from having a drone in their

The IHL, also known as the international humanitarian laws state that “the targeted individual must be directly participating in hostilities with the attacker”. Additionally, the human rights law states that “the targeted individual must pose an imminent threat that only lethal force can prevent”(drones.procon.org). Suspecting connections to militant organizations or under the CIA’s policy of “signature” drone strikes does not make it an excuse of profiling individuals as terrorists. Such assumption is not legally sufficient to target someone as the sufferer of a drone strike.(drones.procon.org) A military drone is mostly used when war is not openly declared, but is authorized by the government. Attacks by the CIA, which is responsible for eighty percent of the strikes, are classified as covert operations.(http://drones.procon.org/) The government cannot provide any legal information about how the CIA appoints the targets of the strikes. Apparently, the government continues to use military drones to accomplish unlawful killings of “expected members”, with the realization that it has contravened the international law as well as human

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

Drones are an effective counter insurgency tool deployed extensively throughout the world, especially by clandestine intelligence organizations often with the help of the country’s respective Air Force. Not only do they serve as an effective weapon, they minimize human

Three-thousand deaths have resulted in drone attacks and only 1.5 percent of these deaths were “high profile” personnel. Out of these deaths about 20 percent were either civilian or children. This statistic only accounts for the known drone attacks since the government keeps information of these killing secured (Galliott, Jai, and Bradley Strawser). When drones were first invented its intensions were mainly for surveillance. Over the years they have been modified and upgraded to perform tasks that can even match manned aerial vehicles which leads to the first argument for drones. With the use of drones it limits the amount of soldiers in dangerous situations. Drones are controlled by a pilot that sits in a safe command room with a high

First the cost of drones are very minimal. Second drones are unmanned witch allows for there to be no immediate risk for US personnel. Third because drones have the ability to conduct surveillance missions following targets before striking, they eliminate collateral damage. On the contrary the explanations in the papers and other forms of written literature exempt in explaining why drone strikes have raised so much since the inauguration of president Obama in 2008. It is not that drones are not new technology; it is that we have just seen a rising increase in their use, this is a fact not brought up by modern explanations for why drone use is increasing. Therefor saying, traditional explanations for the increase in drone strikes fail to present a detailed disintegration of the nature of drone strikes targets as they have increased over

It's simple really, drones can do what humans do all drones are, are machines that survey and kill “Drones do not capture hard drives, organizational charts, strategic plans, or secret correspondence, and their tactical effectiveness is entirely dependent on the caliber of human intelligence on the ground” (Foreign Affairs). By using drones the US loses the possibility of gaining important and valuable information, “...Washington’s overreliance on drones is that it destroys valuable evidence that could make U.S. counterterrorism smarter and more effective… The United States kills a suspected terrorist, it loses the chance to find out what he was planning, how, and with whom -- or whether he was even a terrorist, to begin with” (Foreign

Drones are very cheap and anyone can buy them or make them. Terrorist and other countries can also use drones against us. In the article, Drones in U.S Airspace, it states “Israelis designed the modern, glider-type drone in the 1970s to be lightweight and small, making it inexpensive to build and difficult to shoot down.” This means that we are not the only ones who uses drones. According to the article by Paul Rosenzweig he states, “Drones have been used increasingly in military missions overseas, targeting al-Qaeda”, this means if we can use it to attack terrorist, terrorist can also use it to attack us. We should not use

Over the years war has changed dramatically from having front lines and charging with spears to guns and explosives, then it evolved further to poisonous gas and airplanes. Thanks to all of the technology of our generation we have come up with a new form of war. Drone warfare, this is when a robot is controlled by a computer by a human. These drones are capable of dropping bombs and shooting bullets. As a result, this form of warfare is extremely different than anything we have ever used before, it is easy, fast, and doesn't cause as many casualties as previous war techniques. The U.S, at the moment, is only using drones for killing terrorists in the middle east, which sounds like a convenient solution to our problems but sadly it’s not. The

Drone technology is always improving in this technology driven world. Drones have the capability of going higher and farther than ever before. The drones that the military uses replace the human drivers that man aircrafts that had done similar jobs. Aircrafts were the use of surveying an area or an air strike. According to Sifton (2012), obviously the primary advantage of the drone is that it insulates its operators from risk. Drones are controlled at a military base thousands of miles away and can see where and what the drone is seeing. Before they actually used drones they might have done flyovers and take video or pictures. If the people of interest feel threatened, they fight take decisive action against the aircraft that was operated by the pilot. According to Mayer (2015), The organization of bigger unmanned flying frameworks, given the blend of their speed, range, also weapons payload; is probably going to have strategic repercussions as well as more extensive vital ramifications (p. 765). Having the speed along with technology in your hands makes

Killing terrorist who happen to have families can cause the sons or daughters of the that family to join extremist fighting which some people argue that using drones and cause more terrorism that it destroys (pros cons of drones , 2015). Drone strikes in the middle east are much cheaper than using the newest aircraft the United States has at its disposal, with the cost of using the F-35 joint Strike Fighter at 35,000 dollars and hour and a budget for the year at a staggering 9.7 Billion, drones have a budget of 5 billion for the whole program. It costs the military anywhere from 18,000 to 169,000 dollars per hour to operate a manned aircraft, drones are 6 to 42 times cheaper to use. (pros cons of drones ,