Pros And Cons Of Drone Strikes

The US government has recently begun to send drones, silent flying machines, to counter the threat of terrorism in the Middle East, with the claim that these bombers will save lives. While some people may be swayed by these claims, stating that drones slowly weaken terrorist action, I argue that unmanned strategic bombing is inefficient, since first, they are only a bombardment, and will not be able to completely stop terrorism without invasion force, and also, their efficiency and accuracy rates are extremely low. If drones continue to be used limitlessly, instead of a defeated ISIS and al-Qaeda, the results will only be the destruction of the Middle Eastern land.

It is important to analyze the historical implications of UAVs. Would the United states have entered war with Persian Gulf, Kosovo or Iraq if there was potential for retaliation on U.S soil. Would the the United States have entered those wars, if those countries could choose to counter attack with UAVs? A question of proportionate response also creates reasons to believe there are moral downsides to count against using drones. The increase of asymmetric warfare techniques by one side of the conflict leads to the rise of a response in asymmetric warfare by the other side. It is not difficult to see similarities between drones and suicide bombers: one is high tech and the other low tech, neither gives the other

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 fear of Soviet Russia has now long dissipated, however, the threat of decentralized terrorist groups now constantly looms on the horizon. Modern day terrorists aim to deliver ideological messages through inducing fear in the public. The platform of terrorism has evolved into technological, proxy attacks capable of causing critical damage to civilians and landscapes. The base case of aerial terrorism is 9/11, an incident in which terrorists hijacked a commercial aircraft to target the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The sheer terror induced by the 9/11 attacks resulted in the installment of more comprehensive air travel security procedures. However, newer aircrafts utilized by terrorists, particularly unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), present a threat operating on a larger scope than air travel security regulations. Through UAVs, terrorists can program guided explosives to target densely populated sites from remote locations. The threat of UAVs is augmented by the accessibility of low-cost drones available through the commercial market. Any technologically-minded terrorist can purchase mass quantities of drones at a low price, weaponize the device, and remotely direct the newly formed weapon through a computer. Furthermore, the operator of the UAV carrying out the act of terrorism incurs no risk to their livelihood,

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

Technology has continuously advanced throughout the decades and we have seen advances in military weaponry, telecommunication, social networks, healthcare/medical, automobile engineering, and aerospace. In light of several technological advancements previously stated, the invention of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) has evolved tremendously, and provided tactical advantages for both the military and law enforcement in numerous critical situations. The use of drones received both criticism and praise for what it is capable of. First and foremost, drones are not solely used as “killing machines”. A drone is a form of surveillance and dataveillance system, and is used for nonlethal purposes since the 1950s (Carpenter & Shaikhouni, 2011).

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.

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

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).

“Dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, US transit systems, European cities, and our troops in Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives” (Gerdau 1). These are the words of President Obama as he spoke on the effective use of the United States drone program. Drone operations have been in effect since our nation was targeted by al Qaeda in 2001. Anything that threatens American lives is undesirable; therefore, drone strikes against terrorists should continue to be utilized by the American government. In today’s society, our nation is threatened by foreign and domestic attacks from anti-American terrorist organizations. The government’s use of drones has drastically reduced this threat by decimating terrorist cells abroad.

Where do we draw the line between terroristic acts and essential need to eradicate terrorists? While there is no definitive definition of terrorism, according to Professor Cindy Combs, in order to constitute an act of terrorism, the aforementioned act must follow a strict set of stringent guidelines. The act must be, carried out against innocent people, intended to frighten the larger audience, be an act of violence, and have political motivation.

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

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

I believe Drone strikes should continue abroad. True, there aresome negatives about it, but there are plenty of positives to it too. The U.S. can benefit a lot from this and it’s a safer alternative.