The Morality of Drones
Moral, by definition, from the Webster Dictionary, concerns the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character (Webster Dictionary, 2015). Recently, drones have been put on a moral watch list by governments around the world and the people they preside over and rightfully so (Arria, 2012). Drones, being equipped with Hellfire missiles that possess the ability to travel at high speeds, carry a large amount of baggage. It is understandable why some people see these killer robots as extremely troubling (Arria, 2012). The United States’ presence via drones in countries whom they are not at war with raise questions in regards to the legality of the U.S.’s operations (Eickenberg,
…show more content…
Surprisingly, some political scientists, moral philosophers, and weapons specialists conclude the use of unmanned, armed aircrafts offer moral advantages over almost any other tool of warfare (Dozier, 2013). “I had ethical doubts and concerns when I started looking into this,” stated Bradley J. Strawser, a former Air Force officer and an assistant professor of philosophy at the Naval Postgraduate School (Eickenberg, 2013). Strawser concluded, after researching a concentrated study of remotely piloted vehicles, that using drones to go after terrorists is not only ethically acceptable, but may also be ethically necessary. This is due to the drones abilities to efficiently identify enemy combatants and strike with absolute precision (Eickenberg, 2013). Strawser questioned, “You have to start by asking, as for any military action, is the cause just” (Eickenberg, 2013)? Therefore, Strawser went on to further back up his opinion by stating, “all the evidence we have so far suggests that drones are better at both identifying the terrorist and avoiding collateral damage than anything else we have” (Eickenberg, 2013). From the standpoint of a military professional who has explored both the negative and positive aspects embodying drones, the positives simply outweigh the negatives.
Drone operators possess
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.
America must hold an ethical standard when using counterterrorism tactics such as drones in order to maintain support from Americans and nations with active jihadist organizations. This task can be difficult because various groups around the world have different opinions of how terrorism should be approached. For example, individuals who have Kantian ethics ideologies are against the assassination of terrorist because they believe that the killing another rational person is morality incorrect (Algar-Faria, 2015). In contrast, utilitarian ethic condones violence acts if the outcome outweighs the evilness if the violence does not occur. These two ethical positions are often used when discussing the ethicality of counterterrorism
In Bradley Strawser’s “Moral Predators,” Strawser argues that “we are obligated to employ uninhabited aerial vehicles (UAVs) weapon systems if it can be shown that their use does not significantly reduce a warfighter’s operational capability.” By their very nature UAVs evoke many ethical questions most of which are addressed by Strawser, who stresses “there is no downside to UAVs.” I would argue there are certainly some downsides to this technology. The aim of this paper is to provide legitimate moral objections to using drones in warfare.
Byman’s tone in this article can be described as defensive. In his argument, Byman attempts to refute the arguments of many Americans that maintain that drones should be eliminated. This is demonstrated in Byman’s response to public criticism that using drones creates more terrorists. He states, “critics...
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.
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
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
Robert Greenwald’s documentary Unmanned: America's Drone War focuses on the effects of America’s drone operations on the citizens of Middle Eastern countries, such as Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan, while also offering insight into the public opinion of people in those Middle Eastern countries on America’s drone policy. The film seeks to convey that the operations carried out by the U.S.A in Middle Eastern countries are callous and irresponsible. The film features interviews from many citizens and leaders from Middle Eastern focusing on the impact that drone operations have had on families and communities, making the assertion that the majorly of those killed by American drone strikes have been nonmilitants showing, and calling for a more humanized approach to drone operations by American leaders.
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.
The military’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are able to fly in the airspace for up to 17 hours providing Soldiers, Marines, and Sailors on the ground real-time images of the enemy for 24-hours 7 days a week. They were engineered for precision and power in order to eliminate the enemy without the need of endangering friendly forces. The technological advancement of the drone has furthered America’s military agenda in multiple ways for the better, however, hundreds of civilian lives have been caught in the blast zone of these military drones. Today’s society and engineers have deemed the use of drones as morally good, but what makes killing the enemy from a remote, safe location any different than chemical warfare, especially if civilian lives
In recent history, the United States has progressively become a more technologically advanced military with the capability to conduct war-fighting with sophisticated equipment to include robots, UAVs, Tomahawks, and nuclear warheads. These weapons are used to reduce American casualties and can be controlled from a computer on the other side of the world. Although these technologic advancements are undoubtedly impressive, hundreds of military and civilian leaders have argued over the morality of using these weapons to accomplish mission success. However, The United States’ increasing reliance on technology and unmanned weapon systems is morally and ethically acceptable under the Just War’s Jus
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
Under international humanitarian law, the target must be participating in hostilities with the United States (”Should the U.S. Use Drones?”). President Obama’s policy of “signature kills” allows the Central Intelligence Agency to target anyone who fits a specific terrorist profile, even if they have not identified the target by name. Another example that shows that it violates international law is that the U.S. keeps it away from the public. Drones strikes are secretive, lack legal oversight, and prevent citizens from holding their leaders accountable (“Should the U.S. Use Drones?”). Using drone strikes can give other countries to engage in human rights abuses. Drones are used in conflicts when war isn’t authorized by congress, which allows the executive branch to have nearly unlimited power over wars across the world (“Should the U.S. Use
Opponents argue that by removing one of the key restraints to warfare – the risk to one’s own forces – unmanned systems make undertaking armed attacks too easy and will make war more likely. Evidence is beginning to emerge that it is the persistent presence of UAVs sitting over remote villages and towns simply looking for ‘targets of opportunity’ that may be leading to civilian casualties. The CIA oversees drone strikes as part of counterterrorism operations, but US officials refuse to discuss the program publicly. According to a tally by the nonpartisan New America Foundation, since 2004 there have been more than 260 US drone strikes in Pakistan, which the foundation estimates killed between 1,600 and 2,500 people. Not everyone feels comfortable with all this. Critics say that the legal and
Talking about ethical implication of drones in military use. Not just U.S. but many other countries like United Kingdom, Israel, China and many more yet to confirm have access to these technology and