The Origin Of Today's Drones

The world isn’t perfect, nor will it ever be. Some acts require military intervention, which involves many sacrifices for the greater good. Drones are a controversial method of combating terrorism. Some argue that these targeted strikes are unethical, ineffective, and only increase terrorist violence, while others believe it is indeed an ethical and effective method of combatting terrorism. With the information gathered, it is easy to come to the conclusion that drones are a necessary asset to the United States to fight terrorism.

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

The CQ Researcher article “Drone Warfare” discusses the usage of UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles or, more popularly known as, “drones”. The primary focus of the article is to illustrate how the United States government is using the drones and discusses whether or not many of the drone attacks have been legal. Since the C.I.A., Central Intelligence Agency, has such influence over what goes on, they have been able to declare the drone strikes as “lawful acts of war and national self-defense in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.” While some people accept this,whether they believe it as fact or simply accept it as a national defense claim, critics have said “the intelligence agency's

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

She begins with drones as a lawful battlefield weapon. The U.S. first used weaponized drones during the combat in Afghanistan that began on October 7, 2001. The U.S. requested permission from Uzbekistan, who was then housing the U.S. air base where drones were kept. The U.S. also used combat drones in the battles with Iraq’s armed forces in the effort to topple Saddam Hussein’s government that began in March

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

September 11 attacks marked an unprecedented development and advancement of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones. Because of their technological capabilities and strategic advantages, drones have been used by the United States government as one of the main weapons in ‘war against terrorism.’ An unmanned aircraft was first used by Elmer Sperry, creator of the gyroscope, when sinking a German captured battleship, but its usage for military purposes began after 1985 (Shaw, 2012, p. 1490). As the United States initiated the use drones against Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces, vast criticism sparked throughout the world questioning its legality under the international law. In this paper, I will focus on the

In the last decade, the number of drone strikes has increased dramatically as more UAVs are sent overseas and the military sees a greater demand in their utilization. In 2005, there were only 2 US airstrikes in Pakistan and in 2010, there were 127. The Pentagon currently operates over 7,000 drones and the budget for 2014 currently estimates over $5 billion for drone research, development, and procurement. Since 9/11, over 95% of all non-battlefield ground killings have been conducted by drones. The United States operates them with consent of Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Somalian leaders, although their public statements and sentiment are strongly anti-drone. In response to the recent controversy over the ethics of this surveillance, President Obama made a speech on May 23, 2013 outlining his justification for the drone program and promised more transparency and tighter policies toward their usage.

Top counterterrorist advisors from both the Bush and Obama administrations champion drone use as the most effective tool in the war on terror. They are relatively cheap, effective at killing terrorist with minimal civilian casualties. They protect US troops by preventing “boots on the ground” scenarios and ultimately make America safer. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is quoted as say, “the only game in town in terms of trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership” An important question to ask is: Are these short term advantages worth the long term repercussions. Michael J Boyle examines this question in, “The Cost and Consequences of Drone Warfare.” He first question the validity of the claim that drones are effective at killing

In response to the 9/11 terror attacks, President George W. Bush declared an all out war on global terrorism. To fight this war, the Bush administration introduced a new weapon, creating the highly secretive US Drone program, pushing the bounds of technology, giving UAVs the power to take life with impunity. In 2009, Barack Obama became president and the rise of the killer drones began. His campaign in the Middle East and abroad would usher in a new age of warfare, one fought not in trenches or fields, but from small air-conditioned rooms, while great Birds of Prey rain Hellfire down upon enemies half a world away; one where powerful men decide who will live

In the article, “Is Obama’s Drone War Moral?”, Matt Peterson argues that the lack of transparency surrounding the number of drone strikes and resulting casualties undermines Obama’s administration efforts to justify the targeted killing program. He states that the administration refusal to detail individual strikes makes it impossible for the public to assess the morality of the program. He attempts to support his points by examining the standards for carrying out violence in self-defense and by explaining how the policies and practices put in place by Obama’s administration fails to uphold these standards. This paper will evaluate the strength and weakness of Mr. Peterson’s analysis to determine whether the conclusions the author draw are

In September of 2011, under the direction of the Obama Administration and with the coordination of the Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.), the United States carried out a successful drone strike against Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni cleric. Though the strike would bring much controversy from all areas of the U.S. political spectrum, the U.S. adoption of targeted killings through the use of combat drones became a staple

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

Drones have been one of the most controversial Military topics in the past ten years. Drones are planes that can be controlled by someone from many miles away. In the past few years, drones have been killing terrorists in the Middle East without putting U.S. military lives in danger. The United States Military should increase use of Drones because they can go places that are unsafe for a human, and save not only a soldier’s life, but also cost less money to manufacture than supplying ground troops and air troops.

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