The Pros And Cons Of Drone Warfare

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.

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

Byman continues with this argument, stating that drones achieve their intended goal without risking American lives. Because drones only require a remote control to pilot, they do not put a member of the US Air Force at risk. This not only reduces the amount of military deaths in foreign countries, but it allows drones to travel to places that are deemed too dangerous for actual US pilots. Byman states that in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, “the government exerts little or no control over remote areas, which means that it is highly dangerous to go after militants hiding out there. Worse yet, in Pakistan and Yemen, the governments have at times cooperated with militants” (Byman 2). The majority of the time, sending in an actual military force is simply too dangerous. Instead of sending people, the US military can send robots.

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.

Technology has continuously advanced throughout the decades and we have seen advances in military weaponry, telecommunication, social networks, healthcare/medical, automobile engineering, and aerospace. In light of several technological advancements previously stated, the invention of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) has evolved tremendously, and provided tactical advantages for both the military and law enforcement in numerous critical situations. The use of drones received both criticism and praise for what it is capable of. First and foremost, drones are not solely used as “killing machines”. A drone is a form of surveillance and dataveillance system, and is used for nonlethal purposes since the 1950s (Carpenter & Shaikhouni, 2011).

The 9/11 attacks killed 2,996 people and injured over 6,000. According to the U.S. State Department’s annual Country Report on Terrorism 2015, 28,328 people around the world were victims of terrorists in that year. By killing terrorists with targeted drone strikes, the U.S. military disrupts and slows down terrorist organizations. In the War on Terror, it is difficult to determine how successful drone strikes have been. However, if we did nothing to fight or stop the terrorists they would be able to recruit, grow, and attack without fear. Despite potential downsides, drone strikes need to continue. It is impossible to estimate how many terrorist attacks have been stopped or how many lives have been saved due to successful drone attacks, but imagine the devastation of unrestrained terrorist

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

Drone Warfare; Summary and Overview This essay consists of a thorough analysis and overview on the book titled Drone Warfare by John Kaag and Sarah Kreps. Drone Warfare covers the political, juridical, and ethical aspects of remotely piloted aircrafts known as drones. The book touches on the political ramifications that the United States’ drone program causes and the general public’s opinion on drones. Drone Warfare also talks about the relationship between the drone program and international laws.

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

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.

“Dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, US transit systems, European cities, and our troops in Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives” (Gerdau 1). These are the words of President Obama as he spoke on the effective use of the United States drone program. Drone operations have been in effect since our nation was targeted by al Qaeda in 2001. Anything that threatens American lives is undesirable; therefore, drone strikes against terrorists should continue to be utilized by the American government. In today’s society, our nation is threatened by foreign and domestic attacks from anti-American terrorist organizations. The government’s use of drones has drastically reduced this threat by decimating terrorist cells abroad.

The general argument made by Natalie Dalziel in her 2014 article “Drone Strikes: Ethics and Strategy” is that U.S. drone strikes have many “strategic consequences” (6). More specifically, she argues that drone strikes “incite” terrorist attacks by “targeting the symptom of the problem rather than the cause” (Dalziel 6). She writes that U.S. drone strikes destabilize and “undermine the legitimacy of governments” where drone strikes occur by turning people to groups like al Qaeda “out of anger” over their government's failure to prevent drone strikes (Dalziel 5).  In addition, she writes that methods like the “signature strike and double-tap” increase the number of civilian casualties which leads to more “retaliation for the strikes” (Dalziel

Drones are an effective counter insurgency tool deployed extensively throughout the world, especially by clandestine intelligence organizations often with the help of the country’s respective Air Force. Not only do they serve as an effective weapon, they minimize human

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

In response to deadly terrorist attacks, the US took to Iraq and Afghanistan with whatever new technology they could find, and drones have ever since become a staple of the American strategy in the War on Terror. However, given the imprecision in drone attacks and their tendency to promote radical anti-US ideals, they have proven to neither be an effective nor an ethical means of fighting terror. In order to successfully combat terrorism, the US can look out to the international community, and further engage their assistance in preventing the growth of terrorism. If the US can cut off all sources of funding to growing terrorist networks and create a strong ground coalition with local groups to take back foothold cities from terrorists, there will no longer be a need for drone attacks. If accomplished, the perpetuation of radical sentiments will slow, and the US can implement more creative strategies against terror. Drones are okay if they are delivering a book on terrorism, but let us stop using them to chase after a misplaced notion that drones are an effective solution to