Thesis Statement For Reapers Research Paper

Even during testing, drones only hit within the expected region, 50% of the time, and in reality this percentage could be lowered by uncontrollable forces, such as weather (Chris Cole, 2014). Drones may have better accuracy and lower civilian kill rate than some other weapons, but that does not justify why drones are safe and should be used limitlessly. With people falsely persuaded that drones are “risk free”, the military is less likely to send lethal force, resulting in the United States dragging a longer and less aggressive warfare (Chris Cole, 2014)

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

Kaag and Kreps’s main concerns are that drone technology is not consistent with international laws. The reasons for the author’s beliefs is that drone technology do not adhere the principals that international laws consist of. The authors talk about jus ad bellum – the right of war, also interpreted as the right of retaliation on the basis of self-defense – and how that justification is based on false principals. The other principal that the authors feel is being misused is jus in bello – the justification (or lack thereof) to engage in a war – due to the issues with interpretation that is existent in modern warfare. The authors believe that further preventative measures need to be established to insure that drone warfare adheres to international laws.

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.

Though military personnel lives are safer with the presence of drones, many who oppose military drones claim that they have increased the death of civilians and do not create safer environments for civilians (Terrill 22). However, drones have been proved to decrease the deaths of civilians due to the technology that allows them to pinpoint their target and strike at that specific target rather than bomb an area that the target is in. For example, in Yemen where many drone strikes have occurred, “civilian death figures… are ‘in the single digits’” (Terrill 22). Drones are claimed to have less collateral damage than the collateral damage caused by manned aerial vehicles. “They strike quickly, and the missile can be diverted from its original target in an unintentional miss” (Hazelton 30). In the drone strikes in Yemen, even President Hadi admits that there are accidental civilian deaths (Terrill 22). But whether ground troops are used, whether manned aerial vehicles are used, or whether drones are used, there will always be a possibility for collateral damage and civilian deaths. However, President Hadi also admits that “Yemen’s air force cannot bomb accurately at night, but US drones do not have any problems doing so” (Terrill 22).

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

When targets are disposed of through means of remote-controlled drones, the U.S becomes disconnected with the war itself. Drone Pilot Colonel D. Scott Brenton himself admitted that in conducting drone strikes with just a screen and controls, he feels no connection or emotion for the people he kills ("Should the United"). This should not be so. Through this, the U.S is able to go to any measure and continue any conflict as it pleases with no remorse for the cost of human lives. This further enables the U.S to disregard moral principles, at the cost of as many human lives as the U.S pleases. War should have restrictions, and every life should be bargained and reasoned with. With this disconnect though, the U.S uses as much force as it pleases in conflicts that threaten their interest. This disconnect through drone strikes also allows the U.S not to notice or care for how it is spreading to the general civilian life in the affected regions. According to witnesses and researchers, drone strikes are harming local populations “beyond death and physical injury” ("Should the United"). Many witness that the people in affected regions live in constant fear of drone strikes, and are afraid to travel or participate in any sort of meeting. Many incidents of local deaths and injuries due to these drone strikes plague the population, and many people consider the drones to be

When I started reading Nassar Hussain and Roger Stahl’s articles about drones, I initially thought of the drones that fly up with a “go-pro” and film scenery. My mind did not even think of the military aspect, because drones have grown to be used in many ways. This reading really made me understand my privilege. It was sad to read about what the Yemeni author wrote, how much terror drones have brought into people's lives; especially because today it is a form of entertainment for Americans, but we never considered the impact it has on people who faced drone strikes. In additionally, the reading by Nassar Hussain brought up a good point, which was that drones did not have sound. They could not hear their enemy, nor the sounds around the environment

After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States has engaged in the global war against terrorism. One of the ways that the United States has engaged in this war is through drone strikes. Drones, otherwise less commonly known as UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) or RPAs (Remotely Piloted Aerial Systems) are the subject of debate all around the globe. They were pioneered by former president George W. Bush and became more popular by the use of former president Barack Obama. Drone strikes are most frequently performed in the Middle East and in South Asia. There are many reasons for controversy on the use of the weapon. One of the reasons that it is so controversial as a weapon is that many are unsure as to if the pros of its

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

War zone, which is accounted for a high sense of cruelty make drones technology is “the only game in town” in fighting suspected terrorism and becoming an attractive and inexpensive preference for military service (Wall, 2013). It improved the success rate of high risk missions including behind-the-lines surveillance that also reduced the cost and human casualities of war to a greater extent (Black, 2013).

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

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.

Since it inception, mankind has been entrenched in warfare for much of its history. Much of our history has been dominated by long periods of conflict. What once began as small groups of individuals fighting each other with whatever weapons they could pick up or craft with their hands, has evolved and progressed into massive state-sponsored armies battling each other with the highest degree of training and the most technologically advanced weapons. Within the last decade a new weapon has been introduced to the battlefield, the unmanned drone. These drones do not require a human pilot onboard and have been at the center of controversy in recent years. Critics of this weapon claim that it violates the principles of just