Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

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.

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

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

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.

When the topic of drones is brought up, some may think they are not among us and are objects of the future, while others may have one that they’ve built themselves and put to use already. Drones are being talked about more and more but not necessarily all for good reasons. The reading titled “From the Eyes of a Drone” by Tomas van Houtryve touches upon how drones affect surveillance, photography, and use for weapons. In a BBC article, “Drones: What Are They and How Do They Work?” the author goes into specific detail on how the United States is planning to use drones for the military. If regular drone use becomes a normality in society, it is true that amazing photography will be a positive outcome but what about privacy? Drones can aid the military as well, but if they are released for the general public to use on the daily things may get out of control. While drones can impact several aspects of life positively, they can create even more harm than one may think.

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

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).

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.

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

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

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

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.

Have you ever imagined someone you love being killed by a terrorist machine? Drones are flying machines that are used by the government for several types of jobs but mainly for warfare. By defining that the use of drones is more harmful than it is good and by refuting counter arguments that they make the military’s job safer, and by presenting claims that the use of drones cause hazardous risks, one will be persuaded that drones are dangerous.

Drones have recently hit the news time and time again within the last decade, and frequently lead to a debate. The majority of those heated conversations often involve the United States of America. Those passionate discussions have ignited a spark in a series of countless debates dealing with drones and the future they possess with the United States of America. Some may not know, but drones are also known as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles or UAV’s for short. A UAV is exactly what it sounds like. First you have aerial vehicle; which is unmanned, but is piloted by a person who is controlling the vehicle from the ground. Drones may seem like a recent technology but it in fact, that depends on your definition of recent. In formal terms, “recent” is often referred to as of late occurrence, meaning within a few years. A drone however is not a recent technology. The earliest recorded use of drones spans back as far as the American Civil War. These drones were self-propelled balloons with explosives on board ("Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)." 762). The United States has been working with drones ever since the civil war. Drones now days are used for reconnaissance and marking targets. Although, as of late they have become a surgical strike weapon via the hellfire missile; and is one of the most sought after defensive weapons a nation can have. Drones are very effective in keeping America safe because of their minimal risk, continuous usage and low cost, and response to a rapid crisis.