Why Drones Work Analysis

The basic reason for the US to use drones at all is to weaken the terrorist state and maintain security, but drone bombings have not achieved this task. In fact, the use of drones may be

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

Article One: Dainel Byman, in his article Why Drones Work: The Case for Washington’s weapon of Choice in an August 2013 article in the Brookings Institute, identifies the positive impact of US drone strikes. Byman contends that US drone strikes are extremely efficient, at little financial cost to the government, and protect the lives of American soldiers. For these reasons, Byman believes that US drone strikes are necessary to the war on terror.

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.

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

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

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).

“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.

It is important that, “The government’s power to kill must be carefully controlled or it could turn into a tyranny worse than terrorism.”(Suarez, Daniel. TED) that is why there are so many strict guidelines to the U.S. Armed Forces actions. In countries where conflict is present, the United States has jurisdiction to intervene with permission from the host state according to international laws of warfare and conflict. Countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia have given official consent to the United States to use drone strikes within their countries, because they cannot control terrorist groups present. Most drone strikes take place in these countries too. There are strict military standards for review of combative situations, some read as follows: “(1) Near certainty that terrorist target is present [in the area of action] (2) Near certain that non-combatants are safe [from drone or similar strike] (3) Assessment that capture [of target] is not feasible (4) An assessment that relevant government authorities in the country of action is contemplated. (5) No other reasonable alternatives exist.” (Louise. Drones). These guidelines make it so that every situation is thoroughly examined while considering all options. This is very common in The United States’ use of drones. The drone operators hold a level of immunity because they are thousands of miles from the combat, that being said

In the article “Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drones Strikes Abroad”, it contain information on both the reasons why and why we shouldn’t allow the use of military drones anymore. Drones or also known as a UAVs (Unmanned aerial vehicles) have been all over the news as of late because of the controversy about the use of them. Attack or military drones have been used as far back as the late 1840’s to carry out specific mission that may involve stealth over the enemy. Now that technology has improved engineers have found hundreds of ways to make stealth drones in different shapes and sizes. Some of the people who side with the drones say that “Drones have decimated terrorist networks abroad via precise strike with minimal civilian

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

Drone use is an effective method for the USA to use as a defense against terrorism and other threats. Drones are now used worldwide as a defensive weapon for many different nations. They are effective in keeping US soldiers safe and as a result they have fewer post war symptoms. Not only are drones more effective that manned combat, they are drastically cheaper and fewer people are killed as a result of a drone strike. More than half of Americans already support drones, regardless of political party.

Whether it is a toy one gets for Christmas or a birthday, or if it is government made, drones are prevalent in today's society. They have been utilized by the military to help fight the war on terrorism. While one could say that drones are helpful, one may fail to see the negative effect the drones have on the people witnessing the attacks and the pilots. Innocent civilians are killed, pilots are physically and emotionally stressed, and large populations of people are traumatized the world over.

There are many issues surrounding the use of drones, the main one is the scary amount of civilians deaths there are. Between 2009 and 2015 there were “...528 strikes that killed 4,189 persons, an estimated 474 of whom were civilians” (Foreign Policy).