Why Drones Work Analysis

Drones are a better alternative to traditional methods of war because they kill less civilians, are legal under international law, and also that they do not create more terrorists than they kill. These facts will prove that older methods of war such as mortars, and bombs pale in comparison to the drone and the effect they have and will continue to have in the war on terror.

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

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.

The general argument made by Daniel Byman in his 2013 article “Why Drones Work: The Case for Washington’s Weapon of Choice” is that the United States should continue the use of drones. More specifically, he argues that drones are a “necessary instrument” for combating terrorism due to their effectiveness (Byman 32). He writes that drones do their jobs “remarkably well” by offering a “low-risk way” to target threats of national security (Byman 32). In addition, he writes that, in most cases, drones are the “most sensible” option, because they reduce the chances of civilians being “caught in the kill zone” (Byman 34, 35).  In this article, Byman is suggesting that the “critics” of drones need to realize that alternatives to drone strikes are

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

Ever since 2001 the united states has been using drones known as uavs and predators to locate or destroy terrorists and their out posts, before we used drones it was very expensive to find terrorists as we had to use satellites until we built the Gnat or known as the Predator drone and shortly after the drone was made it was put to work. The Predator drone was used in the mission to find Osama Bin Laden after the september 11 attacks. This adds to the long-time debate over Drone use, there are pros and cons to the use of Drone strikes some believe we should use Drone strikes yet others believe it's ‘’unsafe and has a playstation mentality’’. We should use drones because Drone strike destroy terrorist networks all

Not only do drones decrease the total amount of civilian casualties, drones help to keep our soldiers out of harm’s way, which saves the US billions of dollars annually. Drones are remotely controlled from military bases in the US, and the actual drones are launched from bases in other allied countries. This minimalizes the risk of death and/or injury that may occur if traditional pilots and aircraft are used. Many terrorist groups operate out of remote regions that are very hard to access and they have many risks such a tribal war, IEDs, snipers and weather. Drones also help to prevent soldiers from PTSD and other post- war symptoms. Only 4% of drone pilots are at high risk for PTSD, compared to the 12-17% of soldiers returning from active duty. Drones eliminate all these risks without ever putting a soldier on the ground.

“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.

Using drones is a very touchy subject, and there are many arguments about it. These drone strikes do not only complete their mission but also keep american soldiers out of harm's way. Drones have been used for years but just in 2015 there was 13 CIA drone strikes in pakistan. In these 13 drone strikes there was 60-85 killed, 0-2 of those were civilians and 0 were children. These drone strikes are very accurate and unlike what people against drones say, there are not hundreds of civilian casualties. So ask yourself, would you rather have the risk of killing a few civilians, or would you rather risk the lives of hundreds of american soldiers by sending them into these dangerous areas? If the U.S. didn't use drones imagine how long it would take to find people,

Drones are an immoral counter-terrorism act that “violate international laws against summary execution” (Sluka 94). In other words the US might as well say they are trying to rid of Middle Eastern ethnicities in a rare form of genocide carried out by the use of drone and drone related air strikes. Thousands of war casualties fall victim to drone strikes, way more than the actual terrorists targeted by the

One of the problems is the fact that some people who are are not terrorists are collateral damage because of drone attacks. There are people that can fit some aspects of a terrorist’s profile even though they are not actively involved in terrorists acts . In October of 2015, leaked documents showed that 90% of the people killed in a drone strike were not the intended targets, even though they are classified as “enemies killed in action”(Drones). Along with this fact, operators told a reporter at the McClatchy Newspaper that the pilots are not always sure of who they are killing (Drones). They are not sure because they can not fully see the target.

Drones have been used for many years. “Initially remotely piloted aircraft were used as target drones starting the 1930’S.” Drones are currently being used in many of these different aspects. Our lesson states “the nature and use of drones varies widely. Most are unarmed and used for intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance (ISR) functions. With reference to conducting attacks, drones afford attackers vastly increased capabilities and dramatically expand the options available to them. ISR drones enhance the ability to verify the nature of a target before striking it with other assets, thereby diminishing the likelihood of mistaken attack.” As stated, we are currently using drones for many things but I believe that we can continue

Over the past few decades, drones have slowly been coming into use, showing astonishing results, such as a 1.5% civilian casualty rate (Lewis 1-9). At first they were only used for surveillance, but now, they are used for much more than that. The military should continue using drones because of the many advantages they have over traditional combat methods, namely fewer civilian casualties, lower expenditures, increased abilities, and the moral responsibility of their use. Despite these facts, there are those who question the use of drones and believe that drones create more threats to our military than they destroy. The advantages of drones provide the U.S. military with an edge over terrorists and will help end the war on terrorism with as little costs and casualties as possible.

To provide some background on the subject of drone warfare, a drone, sometimes called an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), are remotely piloted aircraft that are used for covalence and targeted attacks. Drone strikes were first used under the Bush administration in 2004, but increased exponentially under the Obama administration. Drone strikes have consistently been used to fight the United States war on terror against the Taliban and Al Qaida terrorist groups, Which have taken refuge in Pakistan, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia. More often than not, this type of warfare involves fighting an enemy that is indistinguishable from the civilian population. Drones are useful in these types of situation because they are able to circle a target area for up to 18

It's simple really, drones can do what humans do all drones are, are machines that survey and kill “Drones do not capture hard drives, organizational charts, strategic plans, or secret correspondence, and their tactical effectiveness is entirely dependent on the caliber of human intelligence on the ground” (Foreign Affairs). By using drones the US loses the possibility of gaining important and valuable information, “...Washington’s overreliance on drones is that it destroys valuable evidence that could make U.S. counterterrorism smarter and more effective… The United States kills a suspected terrorist, it loses the chance to find out what he was planning, how, and with whom -- or whether he was even a terrorist, to begin with” (Foreign