The Ethics of Drone Warfare Essay

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

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

Since the events of 9/11, drone strikes have become a tool for the United States as it fights a global war against terrorist organizations. The advantages and disadvantages of this particular counterterrorism option continue to be debated. Instead of sending in warfighters to achieve specific objectives, many argue that unmanned combat aerial vehicles provide the U.S. military and government with low-risk and low-cost options as it engages in military operations in other regions of the world. Compared with manned fighter aircraft, some of these unmanned vehicles are able to fly longer without stopping, which affords the U.S. with better intelligence collection and targeting opportunities. Even if the aircraft were shot down, there is not

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.

There are several debates and arguments going on during this time in the government and in people's conversations. One of them is whether drones should be used in the military or not. Furthermore, everyone is looking for a solution that would benefit all and make the world a safer place to live without fear. Moreover, what is the correct answer, it isn't an easy test that you can study and know the correct answer, this is a serious question with no correct answer. How would it affect the people surrounding the target, their family, and would this be the solution that we have all been looking for for so long?

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 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

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a sixteen-years-old boy, was a third American killed by CIA drone strikes in Yemen while searching for his father, Anwar al-Awlaki, also an American citizen, who had been killed in a U.S. drone strike (Finn and Browning). Although drones kill not only terrorists but also innocent civilians including children like Abdulrahman, many drone strikes have been made to Pakistan between the year of 2004 and 2012. This is because the United States military successfully kills targeted enemies without losing a soldier by using drones. However, civilians living near the targeted area are killed by the drones as killer drones can’t accurately focus on the enemies. Therefore, the military’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

The primary complaint made by detractors of the U.S.’s drone strikes are that they cause too many civilian casualties, making them immoral to use (Source K). Drones are actually much less deadly to citizens than conventional forms of warfare,

The U.S. government has received a lot of condemnation from individuals, local and international community on its use of drone strikes as a mode of fighting terrorism. A lot of questions have cropped up on the effectiveness of the drone strikes, and the fact they’re going against the international human rights and laws-of-war. Despite the advantages associated with the use of the program, investigations from different studies have revealed the demerits outweigh the merits of the use of the program.

When the U.S. unexpectedly faced the infamous 9/11 terrorist attacks which left thousands dead and millions dealing with dread and anxiety, the nation’s capital and the Bush administration decided to begin using the comparatively new technology of UAVs more frequently to fight terrorism in Afghanistan. These unmanned aerial vehicles (also known as combat drones) are weapons of war that transport bombs and missiles for precision strikes (“Drones: What are they and how do they work?”). But it wasn’t until President Obama took office that the usage of these drones turned over-excessive; the Obama administration has killed more individuals with UAVs than those civilians who have died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, an approximate and confirmed number of 3,674 including innocent civilians (Zenko). Even though some of the drone strikes that the U.S. has carried out have been successful in eliminating high-profile terrorist suspects, there still

Nearly every week there is news of another drone strike and this has left many nations deeply divided on the issue. Many people support the use of drones proclaiming that they will save the lives of many American soldiers by allowing for the United States to wage wars against other countries without putting troops on the ground. Critics of this idea state that the use of drones removes the risk associated with war and can lead to the killing of innocent civilians. In reference to civilian casualties Noah Shachtman states that, “A drone can't dig through the rubble and see what the consequences of that Hellfire missile was” (Dretzin & Rushkoff, 2010, 1:09:51). The use of drones has an even more brutal cultural effect on Middle Eastern countries who are under attack by these machines. Every day innocent civilians wake up and live out their day fearing for their lives that a US drone strike intended to stop terrorism will kill them. In an interview with a civilian Pakistani father, he explained that "drones are always on my mind. It makes it difficult to sleep. They are like a mosquito. Even when you don't see them, you can hear them, you know they are there” (Friedersdorf, 2012). This life filled with constant terror and stress has caused a negative cultural shift in the Middle East and the constant increase of drone strikes definitely does not help

The use of drone strikes makes people wonder if it is necessary and proportional to the threat. The principle of proportionality prohibits excessive force, taking consideration of both civilian and militant casualties of war. Even if a target is considered lawful under the IHL, the principle of proportionality still applies and any form of attack that is deemed to violate the principle of proportionality is subject to prohibition of the attack itself. The IHL have banned many weapons after WWII for causing more harm than necessary, such as explosive projectiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and cluster munitions. And this is only to name a few that have been banned by treaties like the Declaration of Saint Petersburg (1868), Geneva Protocol (1925), Convention on the Prohibition of Biological Weapons (1972), Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (1993), and Convention on Cluster Munitions (2008) to name a few. In the case of Drone warfare, drones itself are not dangerous or illegal, but the way they are being used by the US government raises many issues since civilians are becoming of target whether by accident or on purpose. Verification of the events in Pakistan confirms that militants are not defined strictly to terrorists, but any civilian can be classified as “militants” if they are dressed the same, or even in the same vicinity. Using signal

To provide some background on the subject of drone warfare, a drone, sometimes called an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), are remotely piloted aircraft that are used for covalence and targeted attacks. Drone strikes were first used under the Bush administration in 2004, but increased exponentially under the Obama administration. Drone strikes have consistently been used to fight the United States war on terror against the Taliban and Al Qaida terrorist groups, Which have taken refuge in Pakistan, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia. More often than not, this type of warfare involves fighting an enemy that is indistinguishable from the civilian population. Drones are useful in these types of situation because they are able to circle a target area for up to 18