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. First of all both authors agree that drone strikes cause casualties among civilians. They agree that drones can cause harm among civilians as far as drones hovering above for days or weeks at a time and that; that causes fear, paranoia, and mental health problems for civilians. But where they …show more content…
Bymans main points are that drones are more effective, that drones strikes actually do not cause more civilian deaths than any other weapons of war, and that drones are here to stay, we need to understand why they are being used and the benefits of drones, to not just our country but around the world. Friedersdorf main points are that someone needs to be held responsible for these drone strikes that there needs to be more information as to why theses drone strikes are authorized, and that even if a drones do not strike the presence of it in the area can cause just as much damage as if it were to hit it’s target and kill people, and why drones are not a ethical way to wage war. Again both authors give great reasons as to why drones work and do not work, that’s why this topic “drone strikes” is a very controversial topic on capital hill and around the
There had been Pros and Cons since President George W. Bush officially declared the "Global war on Terror"(GWOT) on September 20, 2011.
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.
On the use of drones, NYT’s Peter M. Singer (“Do Drones Undermine Democracy?”) makes the comprehensive argument that the use of drones goes against the how wars are meant to be fought—human participation. It can be counter argued that these automatons are better in terms of expendability; personnel are not easily replaced while drones are easily replaceable. The Bush 43 strategy relied more on men, and it did yielded adverse results politically. The switch to drones presented dynamic political benefits, for which Singer argued allowed for circumvention of aggravated/emotive discourse among members of the American populace, academics and mass media. It is imperative to remember that the cost of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq—increases in casualties—was detrimental to the American credibility and brought about victory to Obama in 2008 elections.
It is indeed sad that some people have to pay the price of criminals. However, when we see it from another perspective we might understand the reasons that may support it. The tragically events of 9/11 have change many things, in particular the safety of our people and policies of national security, as for instance the Anti-terrorism Act. The US government claims that this act is supported by several claims: one, this law is necessary to fulfill international obligations; two, many allied countries had ratified similar laws. And third, this Act provides greater protection than other legislations, (Boccabella, 2003). These legislations are not passed overnight, but after much study and critical thinking of possible consequences. What does not
The drones would take care of the strikes and that would be that. No soldiers would be hurt or even die while the drones were doing their job. DeBrabander then makes a statement, ". . . with less skin in the game, the less worried their loved ones will be . . .," momentarily makes readers believe that the drones do serve a great purpose. However, through effective comparison DeBrabander leads his readers to logically infer that the drones must also be responsible for the death toll that they will bring with the airstrike. It then becomes clear to the reader that the ". . . drones will be tempting for our leaders . . ." our society feels that once we start using drones, we would be heading down a dark
It’s important to acknowledge that yes, drone strikes have brought about a completely different type of warfare, one which the original thinkers behind just war theory probably could not fathom. As put by Yemeni activist Farea al-Muslimi, “When there is a normal war, people can hide, or they can stay away from the military – they can make choices and be careful, but when drones come, you just don’t know when you’ll be next. The fear is incredible.” Drone usage comes at a great cost; the psychological effect of constantly being on guard on Yemen’s civilians are perhaps a new aspect of war that should be considered when considering the behaviors considered ‘just’ during
target killing might be a necessary evil in order to maintain and protect the ideals of the American people. Sometimes it is necessary to act quickly, precisely, and secretly in order to neutralize a threat to prevent something greater from happening. Also, if the government were to alert the people of its actions, it would affect the outcome of the missions. Because of this there is a thin line between what should be accepted when pertaining to drone use and target killings.
If 9/11 did not happen a lot of things would be different. When it comes to airports and its security, we would not have to show up at the airport a few hours before the flight to take off shoes to pass through security, and we may even be able to bring liquids on planes. When it comes to legislation, had the act of violence not happened, George W. Bush might not have won a second term. If John Kerry was voted into presidency, Obama might still be in the Senate. I feel that September 11th influenced a dramatically changing international system. And today would not essentially be safer absent September
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.
The term “cyber terrorism” refers to the use of the Internet as a medium in which an attack can be launched such as hacking into electrical grids, security systems, and vital information networks. Over the past four decades, cyber terrorists have been using the Internet as an advanced communication tool in which to quickly spread and organize their members and resources. For instance, by using the instantaneous spread of information provided by the Internet, several terrorist’s groups have been able to quickly share information, coordinate attacks, spread propaganda, raise funds, and find new recruits for their cause. Instantaneous and unpredictable, the technological advantages these terrorists have obtained from using the Internet includes
...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)
Living in the digital age where we enjoy the various fruits of latest technological tools and advancements, then at the same time we cannot escape from their hidden or apparent harms. Also, it is a fact that some gadgets supported by these technological advancements are much capable to bring destruction and disaster then construction and convenience. The same goes for the Drone Technology which since past 200 years is being used to create turbulence at the global level. It has proved to be a powerful investigator and bomber at the same time. Drones are specifically associated with military actions and the countries having used them for surveillance purposes include UK, USA, Italy, Japan, Austria, Australia etc. The list of victim counties or nations is much bigger in contrast. Some prominent victims of Drone Air Strikes include Congo, Venice, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. However, it is also an undeniable fact that the massive production and usage of Drones got multiplied in the 21st century.
Every day the world is evolving, different types of technology are being made for different kinds of uses. Some people in the army want to use drones to carry out different types of missions, in other places in the world. Using will help soldiers carry out missions, quicker, easier, and much more efficient. 60% of Americans agree on the usage of drones for army purposes. Many people say that the army should not use drones because drones will increase the number of terrorists, drones can kill and injure innocent civilians, and that drones will “...allow the United States to become emotionally disconnected from the horrors of war” (ℙ8, Drones). There are many advantages with having drones aid military bases, because