Argumentative Essay On Drones

Jerry Remien
Mrs. Shamrock
American Studies English ⅘ B
16 December 2014
Targeting With Drones
“Killer Drones are the future of warfare. The drone’s extraordinary capabilities have expanded our government’s range for finding, tracking, and destroying human targets” (Radsan 1). Over the past few years the use of drones to perform targeted killings has increased. Drones give the U.S. the ability to have a military presence in dangerous countries without having to have Americans present in those countries. Drones are unmanned aircraft that are remotely controlled. Instead of being a cockpit the pilot is in a darkened room in front a computer terminal in the United States, thousands of miles away from the action. The drone pilot is basically

According to Julie Watson from the Los Angeles Times, research is finding that drone pilots suffer the same PTSD of those who are physically present and actually witness the event (1). Thus, opponents feel that the use of drones is more emotionally dangerous than what the government claims they are. Even though the pilots are seeing what is happening on screens it still has a similar emotional to that of people who actually witness the event happening. Brandon Bryant who manned the cameras at Air Force bases in Nevada and New Mexico for around five years acknowledges: “I would go to sleep and dream about work, the mission, and continuously see the people earlier now on the screen in my own head repeatedly being killed” (1). This quote clearly demonstrates how drone pilots can suffer from similar ptsd of those who are actually present and witness the event. Even though pilots are seeing what is happening on screens and not with their own eyes, some are still affected by this. However, People who are actually present in the place of the attack are both physically and emotionally at

According to Dr. Byman “The drones have done their job remarkably well: by killing key leaders and denying terrorists sanctuaries in Pakistan, Yemen, and, to a lesser degree, Somalia, drones have devastated al Qaeda and associated anti-American militant groups. And they have done so at little financial cost, at no risk to U.S. forces, and with fewer civilian casualties than many alternative methods would have caused” (1). Any alternative action such as dropping bombs or putting boots on the ground is more dangerous to U.S. soldiers and to innocent people of that country. Bombings by F-16s or Tomahawk cruise missile salvos, for example, pack a much more deadly payload. In December 2009, the United States fired Tomahawks at a suspected terrorist training camp in Yemen, and over 30 people were killed in the blast, most of them women and children. At the time, the Yemeni regime refused to allow the use of drones, but had this not been the case, a drone's real-time surveillance would probably have spotted the large number of women and children, and the attack would have been aborted. Even if the strike had gone forward for some reason, the drone's far smaller warhead would have killed fewer innocents (Byman 2). Not only do drones reduce casualties of civilians but no Americans are harmed in the process. Due to unreliable sources, Byman