Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Use of drones to combat terrorists
The pros and cons of drone warfare
The pros and cons of drone warfare
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Use of drones to combat terrorists
Drones change the way to fight to remote warfare. United States started using drones right away after 9/11 happened. They sent drones to terrorist countries. The use of drone strikes should be used abroad to save the lives of more American and Allied forces while successfully battling terrorism. The United States drones strike program has made a difference. Use of drone strikes saves the lives of American troops. Drones were built to protect pilots, ground troops and save lives. Some people believe that using drones decreases risk to all soldiers. As stated in, Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad?, ProCon.org. "Drones ProCon.org." ProCon.org. 14 Sep. 2016, 1:58 p.m., drones.procon.org, they point out that …show more content…
Under the law of war, whether engaging in hostilities...or exercising the inherent right to self-defense, an armed attack must adhere to the principles of necessity and distinction. In their article, Steven Groves is Bernard and Barbara Lomas Senior Research Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation, They said “The principle of distinction requires that only combatants and military objectives be targeted” (Drone Strikes: The Legality of U.S. Targeting Terrorists Abroad). The principle of necessity requires that an attack against an enemy provide the attacker with a “definite military advantage” for the purpose of effecting the “complete submission of the enemy as soon as possible. In the article, Steven Groves is Bernard and Barbara Lomas Senior Research Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation. “If it is deemed militarily necessary to target an operative, a law-of-war principle of “proportionality” must also be met for such a strike on an operative to be considered lawful and not a war crime”(Drone Strikes: The Legality of U.S. Targeting Terrorists Abroad). Proportionality: A principle requires belligerents to attend to minimizing harm to innocent civilians during an armed attack; avoiding …show more content…
Drone proponents argue that lawful use should continue until non-state, transnational terrorist organizations no longer present an imminent threat to the United States. In the article, Steven Groves is Bernard and Barbara Lomas Senior Research Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation, “Proponents support the priority use of any tool to prevent future terrorist plots or successful attacks on the United States Homeland”(Drone Strikes: The Legality of U.S. Targeting Terrorists Abroad). Congressional Authorization. In the article, Steven Groves is Bernard and Barbara Lomas Senior Research Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation, “The days following the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force”(Drone Strikes: The Legality of U.S. Targeting Terrorists Abroad). The authorization provides the President the ability to use all force deemed necessary and appropriate against a person, organization, or nation to prevent any future terrorism against the United States The Right to Self-Defense: In the article, Steven Groves is Bernard and Barbara Lomas Senior Research Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a
Those who oppose the use of drones in warfare claims it violates international law. They believe that the strikes have no justification therefore violating international law. (Moskowitz) They claim that the benefits of the usage of drones do not outweigh the cons of using drones. The opposition claim that civilian casualties make up 2-10% of total fatalities from drones firing on wrong targets or the civilians are collateral damage.(Globalresearch) The dissentient think it causes more unrest than peace in some regions due to the collateral damage caused to buildings and civilians and is another sign of American arrogance. (ABC News)Even though their points are valid, these reasons do not warrant the cease of drone activity.
Controversy has plagued America’s presence in the Middle East and America’s usage of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) contributes vastly to this controversy. Their usefulness and ability to keep allied troops out of harm’s reach is hardly disputed. However, their presence in countries that are not at war with America, such as Pakistan and Yemen, is something contested. People that see the implications of drone use are paying special attention to the civilian casualty count, world perspective, and the legality of drone operations in non-combative states. The use of drone technology in the countries of Yemen and Pakistan are having negative consequences. In a broad spectrum, unconsented drone strikes are illegal according to the laws of armed conflict, unethical, and are imposing a moral obligation upon those who use them. These issues are all of great importance and need to be addressed. Their legality is also something of great importance and begins with abiding to the Laws of Armed Conflict.
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.
In this paper, I will examine how drone strikes are instituted in America’s foreign policy and their effectiveness against terrorist organizations. Although drone warfare might seem effective and thus desirable for many people, the civilian casualties that it causes increase anti-American sentiment in the region. This sentiment creates a backlash that in fact helps terrorist groups regain their leader, recruit new members, and facilitate revenge, making drones a counterproductive foreign policy
Imagine sleeping in your own bed knowing that a few houses down the street lived a terrorist who was planning on doing something extreme. Would you be okay with a drone strike where he lived knowing it could possibly kill you and your family as well as many other innocent people? What about knowing that it hit the target and that there was one less terrorist who could cause harm to innocent people as well? The pro-drone strike article “Why Drones Work: The Case for Washington 's Weapon of Choice (Byman). In contrast the anti-drone strike article argues, “Drone strikes are an unethical violation of human rights” by (Friedersdorf). That drones do not just affect targets but also communities and all the people who live here.
Indeed, as prior U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wrote when describing the war on terror, “this will be a war like none other our nation has faced.” However, these changes bring the morality of this new face of war into question, and the justification of drone use and other modern military tactics involved in the war on terror is a subject of much debate. Focusing on U.S. involvement in Yemen from 2010-2015 as part of the war on terror, this essay will argue that, while the U.S. has met most of the criteria of jus ad bellum, the methods the U.S. has employed to counter terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda have ultimately violated the principles of just war theory, even when analyzed from the perspective of modern warfare within the framework of the current global
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" is a philosophical question regarding observation and reality, which can be further applied to the use of war drones. War drones, are remote controlled aircrafts that humans control on land in remote locations. These unmanned aerial vehicles must be analyzed to determine their legitimacy and morality. Drones, although having the possibility of decreasing risks to civilian and U.S. militant lives, make no binding promise. Furthermore, due to the secrecy in which they are operated the kills the vehicles do execute tend to go unnoticed because U.S. militants aren’t physically harmed; therefore, the kills go unobserved and mostly unacknowledged by the public. Secondly, drone attacks are merely aimed at killing, as opposed to capturing enemies; consequently, there is no gain of intelligence into the terrorists’ cells. Lastly, these remote controlled aircrafts can be hacked by enemies and currently we lack the security necessary to halt the hacking. The promises drones offer are empty and lack supporting evidence, while the negatives are clear and demonstrably verified; accordingly the risks drones present outweigh their possible benefits.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), also known as Drones have been used since the civil war, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. The idea of unmanned aerial vehicles had been growing more and more with every conflict our nation has come across. The use of drones is now in full effect, ranging from military operations to relief efforts. Controversies around the increased use of drones include target killings by the military and surveillance by drones within the U.S. Target killing has shown to be effective and favorable against terrorism but some have seen it as a violation of human rights
War can be defined as “an organized and deliberate political act by an established political authority, which must cause 1,000 or more deaths in a twelve-month period, and which requires at least two actors capable of harming each other” (253, Mingst.) This is a broad definition as war can take several different forms, categorized in various ways. Today, the United States is engaged in the War on Terror. In a post-9/11 world, terrorist attacks are even greater sources of fear to citizens, as well as massive threats to national and international security. Over the past few decades, terrorists have been successful in increasing support and achieving political aims. This poses a major security dilemma to victims, such as the United States. It is this sense of insecurity that leads to military action. Any sense of threat is likely to send a nation to arms (251-252, Mingst.) The U.S. government thus must decide as to what the best course of action would be, in protecting the nation. Over the past decade, drone use has increased exponentially for this purpose. These unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, are often used in attempts to eliminate terrorism. While it is evident that terrorism poses massive threats to the nation, drone strikes are not conducive to a just war.
(Custom Reader 104) This topic intrigued me because I haven’t really thought about if the American citizens had to run in fear for their lives, knowing a drone flying around your safe territory could randomly eliminate you at any time. This made me wonder if situations like this created enmity or jealousy towards the safeguarded citizens belonging to the aggressor. The article highlights O’Connell’s dismay that the misuse and misplacement of drones within ethical bounds has fanned fire into the flames, only making those opposed to the United States angrier. (106) While O’Connell’s argument is definitely sincere in caring for the well-being of other beings, I believe that there can definitely situation in which another hostile would resort to hiding within the safe zones, which would endanger those who are immediately surrounding him and those who he may be plotting against. While this does not intrinsically warrant deployment of drones to search for and eliminate the target, it forces a great burden on to the shoulders of the CTU and the government that I’m sure no person would
In contrast to this, drones strikes violate the authority of the counties they attack, most attacks are carried out without the authorization of the country .Pakistani Prime Sharif said that the "use of drones is not only a continued violation of our territorial integrity but also detrimental to our resolve at efforts in eliminating terrorism from our country... I would therefore stress the need for an end to drone attacks."( Anderson ). How are terrorist groups sopost to respect us when the example set is that invading other countries is complete okay. Not to mention that the fury by them and the rest of the country could lead someday to a devastating war or a massive attack. Adding to this United Nations ' Human Rights Chief has called US drone strikes a “violation of sovereignty” and have forced for investigations into the legality of the attacks. More of a reason for them to be remove from our
Drones are remotely controlled aerial vehicles that have been used since the Afghanistan war. The UK have began using UAVs in October 2007 during the Afghanistan war. Even though drones have many different size and shapes they fall into two categories. They are either used for surveillance or armed missions (What are Drones?). Drone strikes begun during the George W. Bush administration, and have increased substantially under President Barack Obama’s administration. Drones are wildly debated due to the fact that...
This can lower military costs that can go towards other parts of our nation for example education, or paying of the billions of dollars owed in debts. The budgeted price was 2.9 billion total for drone striking, and the U.S. is spending roughly $8 million per day on military to supply the military with the jobs that a drone strike can do. This is similar to the 13-year war with Afghanistan, so paying the military for 13 years would equal to $37,960,000,000 instead of the $8,000,000(Freidman). There is one obvious choice to save money and that would be drone striking. There is also an issue of civilian deaths. There have been nearly 2,500 killed people in Pakistan, about 450 civilians died. That’s roughly 17 percent of them civilians (Saletan). If you look in the big picture 17% is not nearly as terrible as it could be. What would be the solution if drone strikes were eliminated, The only example I can think of is going back to nuclear bombing and bombing cities and not being as accurate? In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were upwards of 100,000 civilian deaths, so the number is miniscule compared to a previous bombing battle that we ,the United States of America, have fought in.
One of the latest and most controversial topics that has risen over the past five to ten years is whether or not drones should be used as a means of war, surveillance, and delivery systems. Common misconceptions usually lead to people’s opposition to the use of drones; which is the reason it is important for people to know the facts about how and why they are used. Wartime capabilities will provide for less casualties and more effective strikes. New delivery and surveillance systems in Africa, the United Air Emirates and the United States will cut costs and increase efficiency across the board. Rules and regulations on drones may be difficult to enforce, but will not be impossible to achieve. The use of drones as weapons of war and delivery and surveillance systems should not be dismissed because many people do not realize the real capabilities of drones and how they can be used to better the world through efficient air strikes, faster delivery times, and useful surveillance.
...only imagine how hazardous this world we live in become. Amongst countries this can become an international competition to make drones to be used as a factor. When other nations see this particular country is using some type of technology to improve their military system then they would want part of it as well. The drone practice can cause to escalate if other countries adopt to this new technology for their own reason of protection. There will be no turning back because the government of that country would take advantage of these drones to use it towards the citizens instead of using for “terrorist”. The use of these drones is definitely immoral and unethical but some may argue that the of drones as protection against “terrorist” even though as we can see it kills innocent people, creates more terrorists, causes psychological disorders, and violates privacy. (Cole)