The Pros And Cons Of Drone Warfare

During Clinton’s presidency the CIA borrowed “a gangly, insect-like airplane called the RQ-1 Predator” from the Air Force which allows Clinton to view what is known as a “live drone feed” (Mazzetti 61). Some were impressed by the “insect-like” drone but felt like it would be a waste of time to sit and watch the feed. Those opposed felt that it had no use to it, but only to realize later on how great of an impact it would have for the government (Mazzetti 61). Drones would be the key weapon for a “secret war” since “it was a tool that killed quietly,” and would allow strikes in restricted areas where publicist couldn’t go (Mazzetti 99-100). This weapon created a whole new meaning behind wars and assassinations as some view them as inhuman others view it as success. Many believe citizens should have trust in the government and adhere that drones are being used to “”find, fix, and finish” terrorists” (Mazzetti 77). The CIA use of the drones makes them

Who is then responsible for the death of civilians? It is not an easy question to answer because the person who operates drone is “middle man” taking orders from the government. Also, the president does not make every decision when to strike because the CIA have power to make decision whether to strike or not without presidential approval. There was no case in which anyone was convicted of a drone strike that killed civilians and it is no surprise because the authorities would probably not openly admit to making a mistake.

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

The world has always been filled with fighting and always will be. There are a lot of factors that determine who comes out on top. Technology is always the deciding factor. With that technology, there are many conflicts. The U.S. Military using drones has been one of the most highly debated topics. Even through the doubt, Military drones have proven time and time again to work. Drones are being constantly updated and fixing any flaws that they have at the moment. In the future, drone warfare is unavoidable. When drones were first invented, of course, they did not work amazing. Throughout the years that drones have been around, they shown that they are becoming a more advanced and needed machine. The world is becoming increasingly

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

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.

Unlike drone attacks, using ground troops can result in less unnecessary casualties. When a bomb is dropped it kills not only the target but the people around them. Lives of innocent people can be saved if we had a more accurate point of view. Within 5 months, “nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets.”(Cite #1) Sending soldiers can significantly lower the percentage of innocents killed. When “a drone strike kills more than one person, there is no guarantee that those persons deserved their fate. … So it’s a phenomenal gamble.”(Cite #1) Right now, American soldiers are safe flying drones from thousands of miles away. Sending troops risks American blood but fewer accidental deaths that leave families

[Chapter four deals with the paradoxes of casualties, irony of errors, USA’s response to victims, who is accountable for attacks, advantages and disadvantages of drone attacks.]

Since the use of drones has been used on a much larger scale in the United States military, there has been some skepticism regarding the ethical implication of such machines in recent years (Source H). While 62% of Americans approve of the use of drone strikes other countries are in strong opposition of the handling of drones, such as China and Japan. However recent statistics have shown that drones execute fewer civilians than any other military weapon to date. Not only are they cheaper than traditional aircraft, but they also significantly decrease the risk of soldiers developing PTSD over the course of their service. (Source J).

Nowadays, everyone should know what a drone is. We hear a lot about military drone use but not as much about civilian drone use. Unfortunately, we hear a lot about military drone use in drone strikes or civilians using drones illegally, which many laws govern over, but we never hear the positives of drones. I have been researching drones for the past few months extensively and I have been in the market of trying to buy a drone for the past two years with my brother researching buyable drones. Drones are usually considered toys to people or considered as an entertainment with the Drone Racing League (DRL) or as a hobby, but few people see drones in different ways. Drones are considered tools as well. Drones can drastically help farming, mapping,

As I said before civilians are killed in the line of fire. As drones target high value terrorists they are willing to let hundreds of civilians die in the process. These civilians who have nothing to do with their government or the terrorist groups around them are slaughtered without mercy. Men, women, children, and the elderly are just seen as meaningless casualties.

The use of drones in battle fields remains to be one of the most divisive subjects in modern warfare. Use of unmanned aerial vehicles has become the hallmark of the war against terror. The move has elicited debate which is constantly gaining traction as more damming statistics are released on collateral damages associated with drone warfare. The United States has frequently deployed unmanned aerial vehicles to track down and kill enemy combatants and their leaders. Some of the notable killings were those of Jihad John, the brutal ISISi extremist famous for his execution of westerners in Syria and other al Qaeda commanders in restive terrains of northern Pakistan. Critics insist that the use of a unmanned aerial vehicles blurs the line between ethics and accountability. To back up their claims, they have pointed to the rising casualties of war where innocent persons are losing their lives as a result of drone strikes. Even though the use of unmanned aerial vehicles has been roundly criticized especially, by human rights bodies, it is clear that the tactic have been very effective in eliminating ruthless extremists. In my view, unmanned aerial vehicles have been instrumental in safeguarding the lives of many American soldiers while at the same time effectively executing its mandate be eliminating enemy combatants right inside their territories.

And there are serious questions about whether American representatives have discreet civilian deaths. It can be an astonishment to discover that some ethical philosophers, political scientists and weaponries specialists that are armed, unmanned aircraft agreement that are noticeable with the moral and benefits almost any other tool of war. For their benefits in detecting targets and striking with accuracy. Ever since the drone machinists can be in observation with a target for hours or even days in advance of an air strike, they can detect the terrorists more accurately then the troops that are on the ground or the conventional pilots. They are capable to time an airstrike when the innocents are not near and it can even distract a missile after the dismissal if a child wanders into

On February 4, 2002, for the first time, an unmanned predator drone was used in an air strike near the city of Khost in the Paktia province of Afghanistan. Three men were killed in the strike, although the target of the mission, Osama Bin Laden, turned out to not be there. There has been much debate as to whether the benefits of drone warfare outweigh the risks, however there are more pros then cons to drone warfare (Powers).

In a world of havoc and warfare, people die every day. Civilians die every day. Children die every day. Innocent people die every day. Truth is, this is the world we live in. With the advancement of technology, drone strikes have been introduced to the public as an efficient way of ending warfare. Yet, is it really? Certain people of this world wake up under the shadow of killer drones every day. There are people who leave their households with the worry of not ever being able to return their family. At the current state, drone killing is far from perfection. The fact of the matter is that unmanned flying machines should not be the one to pass judgment on lives.