U.S. Drone Warfare

It is important to analyze the historical implications of UAVs. Would the United states have entered war with Persian Gulf, Kosovo or Iraq if there was potential for retaliation on U.S soil. Would the the United States have entered those wars, if those countries could choose to counter attack with UAVs? A question of proportionate response also creates reasons to believe there are moral downsides to count against using drones. The increase of asymmetric warfare techniques by one side of the conflict leads to the rise of a response in asymmetric warfare by the other side. It is not difficult to see similarities between drones and suicide bombers: one is high tech and the other low tech, neither gives the other

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

According to procon.org, drone strikes used by the U.S. break international law. Targeted individuals of drone strikes must pose a threat that only lethal force can prevent. Simply suspecting of helping a terrorist organization in an area where terrorists are known to be there and bombing it is illegal. These drones are breaking so many laws without punishment that there needs to be more enforcement of the laws that are already in place. What is the point in having a law if you are not going to enforce it. The U.S. needs to stop breaking this international law, or we could have a huge target on our

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.

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 US has conducted over four hundred drone strikes in Pakistan alone since. From these attacks, estimates state that between 700 and 900 civilians have died. This is almost one quarter of the total deaths from these strikes, and these people have died from no transgression. These people live in fear, earning small amounts of money, living small, innocent lives. However no life on our earth can be small enough to die for no good reason. Since 2004, there have been less than 50 recorded civilian deaths in the US that have been conducted by Islamic extremist groups, not just groups from Pakistan. These attacks do serve a purpose, however the cost of human life is too great. Those affected by drone attacks do not have the power to stop this. It’s down to me, it’s down to you and it’s down to us.

After 9/11, the U.S started to implement policies intended to combat terrorism in hopes of preventing further attacks and bring those who were involved to justice. One such policy that the U.S started was to implement the heavy use of drones- unmanned aircraft capable of bombing specific targets. These drones would be controlled by a pilot remotely from the U.S, thousands of miles from where the strikes were taking place. The U.S used these drones to assassinate suspects who were believed to have been linked to terrorism as well as various targets that were deemed to be associated with terrorism, such as weapons factories. Currently, however, there is a debate on the legality, morality, and effectiveness of drones. One side sees the drones as effective at destroying targets while at the same time, minimizing civilian casualties. On the other hand, the other side believes that drones are reliable for

“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.

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

The United States has been authorizing oversea drone airstrikes from quite some years now, if fact, the first strike occurred on Feb 4, 2002. The purpose and reasoning of these drones are to eliminate terrorist overseas, prevent terrorist attacks, and keep soldiers from physically hunting down terrorist in enemy territory. Two problems with the drones are how they potentially create more terrorist than they kill and how they have been brought into our own country on a much smaller and non-lethal scale. Gaining popularity, domestic drones threaten to break amendments or even pose a threat to the civilian population. On the other side, local law enforcement, companies, and even the government can receive huge benefits from having a drone in their

Drones are not always the best way to go, and are most of the time an unnecessary and non-profit endeavor. This is exemplified by the fact that from 2002 to 2014 only 2 percent of target fatalities by drones have been important militants ("Should the United"). The other 98 percent have been unimportant and unnecessary targets that were not a serious threat to the U.S. This means that the 98 percent that were unnecessary were just a extra waste of resources and did not make enough of a significant difference to justify the endeavor. Also, drone strikes are not effective because they have been proven to be inaccurate. Out of 114 drone strikes issued by the CIA in the countries of Pakistan and Afghanistan, 26 of the drone strikes targeted groups categorized as “other militants.” This means that the affiliation of the targeted groups could not be conclusively determined ("Should the United"). In conclusion, these strikes were with no special goal in mind, only executed to potentially harm terrorist groups. This in essence is another waste of resources which can have unknown consequences. In these types of drone strikes the U.S could be eliminating unimportant targets, or worse, they could inadvertently harm friendly factions or neutral civilians in the region of the strikes. This would again turn more individuals away from the U.S cause by building on the hate against the U.S that

The IHL, also known as the international humanitarian laws state that “the targeted individual must be directly participating in hostilities with the attacker”. Additionally, the human rights law states that “the targeted individual must pose an imminent threat that only lethal force can prevent”(drones.procon.org). Suspecting connections to militant organizations or under the CIA’s policy of “signature” drone strikes does not make it an excuse of profiling individuals as terrorists. Such assumption is not legally sufficient to target someone as the sufferer of a drone strike.(drones.procon.org) A military drone is mostly used when war is not openly declared, but is authorized by the government. Attacks by the CIA, which is responsible for eighty percent of the strikes, are classified as covert operations.(http://drones.procon.org/) The government cannot provide any legal information about how the CIA appoints the targets of the strikes. Apparently, the government continues to use military drones to accomplish unlawful killings of “expected members”, with the realization that it has contravened the international law as well as human

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

In the first six months of 2014, a documented report of over 1,500 civilian deaths due to the crossfire from gun battles and roadside bombing, leading to the cause of many deaths (Ross, 2014). It was believed that even if the US forces is targeting the insurgents, the life of those civilians are still endangered and most of them die without realizing that they had became a victim of an airstrike. Drone strikes in Afghanistan have found out to be causing ten times more civilian casualties, than strikes by manned aircraft. We can see that an unmanned air strike can kill civilians without knowing if they are a rebel or an innocent resident. In Afghanistan, when a missile screamed down from the sky, two Taliban men were killed instantly and an innocent girl also died when a chunk of shrapnel flew at her left side, killing her before her family was able to took her to the nearest hospital (Cloud, 2013). The US military has acknowledged that there was a multiple times when they have accidentally killed civilians in a drone strikes, including in 2010 when 24 Afghans were killed in Uruzgan province after being mistaken for insurgents, which was later on determined that they were noncombatants (Cloud, 2013). The sad reality of life in Afghanistan is that, whether you’re an innocent inhabitant or a member of a terrorist group, when a drone strike hits a village and you’re inside