Drone strikes have become a popular solution to taking out targets in the Middle East. Although their use is controversial, some say they are effective, and should be allowed, because of how effective they are at killing on the battlefield. Others argue that drones run a high risk of killing innocents, and shouldn’t be allowed. In addition some believe they are helpful at taking out targets, but they set a dangerous precedent that other nations could use. Drone strikes, otherwise known as targeted strikes, should be allowed because of their lower chances of killing the wrong target, low cost and elimination of risks of killing a soldier in battle because they’re operated thousands of miles away. For starters drones strikes lower the chances of killing the wrong …show more content…
In comparison to the f35 jet the article “The Coming Revolution of Drone Warfare” states “drones are low budget when being compared to jets, the price of a drone is about 14 million, and an f35 jet is 148 million to 337 million” (Zergat 15). The drone is just as capable of killing as an f35; the biggest difference between the two is that drones can kill just as effectively but for a much lower cost compared to the f35. An example of how capable drones are at killing is, “Al Queda has lost over 40 loyalists, of all ranks, to American drone strikes in the past six months” (Walsh 1). Drones are just effective as jets due to their very high killing track record, and can be as effective as a jet. Not only that, but Secretary John Kerry announced that the drone program has killed 1/2 of ISIL’s top command (Cockburn 7). Drones are extremely powerful especially considering their low cost compared to the f35 jet, and considering their high track record for success. Altogether a drone is extremely powerful, it has a very high track record which is impressive considering its low cost when being compared to
There had been Pros and Cons since President George W. Bush officially declared the "Global war on Terror"(GWOT) on September 20, 2011.
The post 9/11 era in The United States defense policies have been one of proactive as compared to reactive. The United States has been looking at methods to gather intelligence on our enemy while ensuring the safety of our troops. The drone has been the answer to the search because the drone is capable of ensuring the U.S. life, forced projection of power over our enemies, and Strategic stealth tactical striking.
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.
Byman’s first argument is that US drone strikes are extremely efficient in their purpose: eliminating high value targets in foreign countries that pose a threat to national security. He cities a study done by the New America Foundation, which found that “U.S. drones have killed an estimated 3,300 al Qaeda, Taliban, and other jihadist operatives in Pakistan and Yemen” (Byman 1). Of these 3,300 militants, over 50 were senior leaders of either Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Additionally, drone strikes indirectly hinder communication between terrorist leaders and their operatives. In an effort to avoid detection, many foreign militants have stopped using cell phones and other electronic forms of communication. Although the elimination of technology makes it harder to find high value targets, it also significantly impacts their ability to communicate, which reduces the amount of organized attacks. Without considering the cost of civilian casualties or other negative impacts associated with the drone strikes, it is clear that UAV drones have been effective in eliminating foreign threats.
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
Topicality: With advancements in surveillance technologies, drones have become a popular surveillance tool used by the FBI. Drones are small aerial vehicles that are unmanned and can carry cameras, microphones and tracking devices. They can even carry chips that mimic cellphone towers and collect data from your cell phone. These drones have no regulations, so you never know when or where the FBI could be watching you. The new White House memo requires government agencies to develop clear rules to protect americans privacy.
What are terrorist attacks? Terrorist attacks are unexpecting attacks using violence against innocent people. Terrorists Cause harm to others in a cruel manner or kill people in cold blood giving them no mercy or feeling no pity for people who sit hopelessly begging for their lives.Terrorists also destroy many infrastructures or civilian population to prove they are high in political and social strength. Terrorists attack people to attain political or religious aims.
The 9/11 attacks led to President Bush declaring a global War on Terrorism(“The 9/11 Commission Report.”,95). After 9/11 there were several anti terrorism laws,the creation of The Department of Homeland Security, several aviation security acts. There was also the targeting of Arabs and Muslims who were seen a suspicious.
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
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
A lot of countries all over the world depend on technological advances to fight against their opponents. This reduced the risk of having a soldier wounded or dying in a war by making it easier with using these technologies when it comes to head to head combat. Even though using technologies are a great idea but many ethical issues arise from it. One of the main issue is the use of these Drones. This technology is developing more and more. In a recent study showed that there are over 700 active drone development all over the world and these programs are controlled under companies, research institutes, and the government. United States is mainly using these drones to fight against so called “terrorist” but some other countries use them as well. It is immoral and unethical to use these drones because it cause psychological disorders, violate privacy, cause deaths of innocent lives, and increase terrorism. (Reardon)
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.
Other weapons that the military have used, such as bombs, destruct a larger range of area, and bombs do much more destruction. With drones, pilots a can precisely plot the location of the target, and it will only destruct a certain range, smaller than a bomb’s range of destruction. Although many people argue that drone will kill innocent civilians near the area of the target, pilots can plot specific points where the drone will attack.