Should U.S.A. Use Drones to Combat Terrorism?

The purpose of the first military drones, in 2002, was to find and locate Osama Bin Laden (Shafton).  Back then, drones weren’t equipped with nearly as many devices as they are now.  From 2002-2004, drones were strictly used for reconnaissance missions (Shafton).  At the time, the drone model in use was the SCPA-039 (“Surveillance and Communications Parsing Aircraft”) (Sharkley).  These drones were equipped with gadgets like long-range radar and three megapixel cameras (Hoffman). The three cameras were used to better triangulate the position of the target (Hoffman). It is estimated that it cost the military around 300K per SCPA unit, when adjusted for inflation (NC DOT).  With the help of these drones, U.S. troops in Iraq were able to more

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

The U.S government started using unarmed drones in 2000 to monitor Afghanistan when the country was at war. The drone program was expanded when the September 11 attacks happened as a way to counteract the terrorists. Drones were used a surveillance but this time most drones are armed with missiles to weaken and destroy terrorist groups power. The death toll from the expansion of the program, according to the human rights group Reprieve, found that in 2014 that US killed 1,147 people in Pakistan and Yemen in the course of targeting only 41 men. This has caused a debate on whether to continue to use drones or to destroy the programs. A large amount of

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

Picture your dearest family member out in the battlefield, struggling for dear life. Only being supported by a jug of water and a rifle until a drone appears with medical supplies or reinforcements. Every year technology advances at an increasingly hypersonic pace. The world has gone from the use of bulky telephones to six-inch touch screens. Soon the world will come from using innocent lives to fight for our country to the use of drones in warfare. Thousands of lives each year are cast away in order to protect our country. Drones could be the answer to finding terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen and stop them before they attack. The United States should continue the use of drones in warfare.

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

Drones are wartime weapons the United States government uses to fight the War on Terror. Officially known as unmanned aerial vehicles, this type of aircraft plays a vital role in protecting the United States, as well as many other countries around the world. Although there are multiple drones owned by the United States government, the MQ-9 Reaper and MQ-1B Predator drones are the most predominantly used drones; General Atomics Aeronautical Systems manufacture both aircrafts.

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

Drones are not always the best way to go, and are most of the time an unnecessary and non-profit endeavor. This is exemplified by the fact that from 2002 to 2014 only 2 percent of target fatalities by drones have been important militants ("Should the United"). The other 98 percent have been unimportant and unnecessary targets that were not a serious threat to the U.S. This means that the 98 percent that were unnecessary were just a extra waste of resources and did not make enough of a significant difference to justify the endeavor. Also, drone strikes are not effective because they have been proven to be inaccurate. Out of 114 drone strikes issued by the CIA in the countries of Pakistan and Afghanistan, 26 of the drone strikes targeted groups categorized as “other militants.” This means that the affiliation of the targeted groups could not be conclusively determined ("Should the United"). In conclusion, these strikes were with no special goal in mind, only executed to potentially harm terrorist groups. This in essence is another waste of resources which can have unknown consequences. In these types of drone strikes the U.S could be eliminating unimportant targets, or worse, they could inadvertently harm friendly factions or neutral civilians in the region of the strikes. This would again turn more individuals away from the U.S cause by building on the hate against the U.S that

Just imagine seeing those military drones fly over your house, and you see an explosion over in the field within walking distance of the house and hear the words, "Run! Get out of this town." That was a drone. The question is, "Are drones good or bad?" Although military drones give information about the enemy, they kill innocent lives, they are an invasion of privacy, and drone pilots could have a mental breakdown because of all the people dying in front of them.To begin, drones will kill more than the intended target 85% of the time. Predator drones are mostly known for anti-terrorist attacks. We disregard the paperwork that has to be done before a lethal attack. "Drones kill innocent lives" (PBS.org). When drones kill, they also will kill

I believe that drones should be used in the military. Drones would help reduce terrorist activity by harming less civilians while in the process of trying to find their target. Drone strikes are more accurate than traditional weapons such as bombs or tanks can cause more unintended damage and the deaths of innocents. This entry shows how drones have reduced the number of deaths of civilians, “...it is estimated that 174 to 1,047 civilians have been killed in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia since the United States began conducting drone strikes abroad following the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks, roughly 8-17% of all deaths from US drones. In comparison, in World War II, civilian deaths, as a percentage of total war fatalities, are estimated at 40 to 67%.” (ProCon.org).

Using drones is a very touchy subject, and there are many arguments about it. These drone strikes do not only complete their mission but also keep american soldiers out of harm's way. Drones have been used for years but just in 2015 there was 13 CIA drone strikes in pakistan. In these 13 drone strikes there was 60-85 killed, 0-2 of those were civilians and 0 were children. These drone strikes are very accurate and unlike what people against drones say, there are not hundreds of civilian casualties. So ask yourself, would you rather have the risk of killing a few civilians, or would you rather risk the lives of hundreds of american soldiers by sending them into these dangerous areas? If the U.S. didn't use drones imagine how long it would take to find people,

Since the Obama administration came into office, drone strikes are the most frequently used technique in order to fight international terrorism. With approximately 7,000 drones of which about 2000 are armed, this counterterrorism strategy is one of the most efficient tools of the U.S.. Especially, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia, drones are deployed where internationally operating terrorist groups are hiding. In countries like Pakistan, the U.S. works in accordance with the Pakistani government. Currently, a controversial debate is heating up in the U.S. and amongst the international community regarding the advantages and disadvantages of drone strikes.

Terrorist attacks are designed to promote fear into all witnesses and victims of their attacks. Drones put that same fear into all leaders of terrorist organizations. Former President Obama once said this on drone strikes, “We’ve seen violent extremists pushed out of their sanctuaries. We’ve struck major blows against al Qaeda leadership as well as the Taliban’s. They’re worried about their own safety. It’s harder for them to move, it’s harder for them to train and to plot and to attack. All of that makes America safer” (Williams). Even through fear, it saves Americans and civilian lives in the area from attacks from these blood-thirsty organizations. Furthermore, having the capability to send drones to attack leaders saves the lives of the

The use of drones has been proven effective and thus disruptive in the modern war era. “As the war in Afghanistan and the fight against transnational terrorism wage on with no immediate end in sight, US forces have increasingly turned to drone (technically labeled an unmanned aircraft system or UAS) strikes to target Taliban insurgents and Al Qaeda terrorists, especially in Pakistan‘s tribal areas of North and South Waziristan. Between 2004 and 2007, a mere nine such attacks were conducted. By contrast, in 2010 there were 118, and by mid-February 2011 US forces had already launched 12.1 The tactic has proven highly effective in disrupting enemy operations. Since 2004, 32 senior members of al Qaeda and the Taliban have been killed. In 2010, for instance, the US successfully targeted such key figures as Ibne Amin, an al Qaeda linked Swat Taliban commander; Ali Marjan, a local Lashkar-e-Islam commander; Sheikh al-Fateh, the al Qaeda chief in Afghanistan and Pakistan; Hamza al-Jufi, an al Qaeda commander; Sadam Hussein Al Hussami, an al Qaeda planner and explosives expert; Mohammad Qari Zafar, a Taliban commander wanted in connection with the 2006 Karachi consulate bombing; Sheikh Mansoor, an Egyptian-Canadian al Qaeda leader; Abdul Haq al-Turkistani, an al Qaeda linked leader of the Turkistani Islamic Party; Jamal Saeed Abdul Rahim, wanted for his alleged role in the 1986