The purpose of this paper it to analyze the different circumstances where drone use in warfare and the civilian casualties will be morally permissible. The order in which this research is presented will be set in order of importance: first, context consideration of the morality of the issue of drone use, second, it so discuss the basis of advocacy of one moral stance over the other, third, to assess the relative strength of arguments for and against the issue, and lastly, the analysis of the United States governments justifications for the use of drones during wartime. The United States has become increasingly dependent upon drones to carryout not only surveillance but warfare altogether. According to Peter Bergman and Katherine Tiedemann …show more content…
Many, if not all, drone strikes take place in middle eastern countries where the united stats has not declared war against a foreign state, but has instead agreed with the government to root out these terrorists. The defense that the United States offers in order to try and defend is a peculiar one, rather than say it is targeting a nation, they say it is targeting a small group of people on the ground. Allowing a justification for a possible domestic attack to allow the use of these drones to attack the root of the problem. Thus, the Geneva accords no longer apply and the rules of formal war also no longer apply. While this loophole is true and will continue to be true until enough people have made their opinions heard not only by the executives of the country, but those countries have to unite and take a stand against the United States and demand that these types of attacks stop on their soil. The CIA’s lethal drone strikes are at their most morally objectionable when they do not even know the identities of the people that they are killing. A fact which is obscures by applying the term “militant” to all military age males that are killed as a result of the strikes. This term is applied so loosely that it is quite scary, knowing that a country could label you son or daughter as a terrorist when in face you knew they were not and you can not do …show more content…
Yet, as with domestic law, there is no conflict between two formal states, such as the United States versus the Russian Federation. Also, most drone strikes are carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency, which is a civilian organization and considered a non combatant with its international recognition. It is also governed differently from the standard United States military agencies which make the CIA illegal operatives of drones. However, the CIA continues these operations to this day without any regard to public disposition. Newer war doctrines such as the Geneva Accords [Revision 2012] now include drone warfare as a method of cyber warfare and is not considered a “direct act of war”. Allowing the CIA to continue its campaign of drone strikes against countries that the United States is not at war with but is considered to harbor terrorists and that they pose a threat to global peace. According to the article “Wanted: Global Rules on Cyberwarfare”, “The United Nations and other global bodies need to make such riles clear” (1). It is one thing to justify a drone strike and the casualties that come with it, but it is an entirely different thing to try and uphold a law that was never written and apply it to an international community who it could not even apply to because they do not have the same capabilities as the United States when it comes to
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.
Cohn’s argument is effective in arguing for the elimination of US drone strikes, which is why I agree with her. Despite their advantages in the war on terror and the protection of the United States, I believe that drone strikes are both illegal and unjust, which is why they should no longer be used by the US military.
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.
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
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.
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
What is a UAV? For people who don’t know, it stands for “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle”. It’s also called a drone. What is a drone? Well, it is an unmanned aircraft that is guided by a remote. You may think they are fun to use and they’re not harmful. Well, you guessed wrong. There are many dangers with using this. For example, crashes with planes, cars, and other drones in the area. But, they could be used for some helpful things, like drone delivery and for getting to hard to reach regions after a natural disaster to deliver food and water.
Murphy, Dan. "Aerial Drones Serve as Weapons of War." Weapons of War. Ed. Diane Andrews Henningfeld. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Briefing: Aerial Drones as Weapons of War." Christian Science Monitor (22 May 2009). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.
The moment I received the prompt to explore just war theory, the first controversial topic containing strong arguments on both sides that interested me was that of drone warfare. As tensions rise between countries and technology improves, the possibility of advanced warfare among nations seems imminent as drones are deployed in replacement of soldiers. The purposes of these unmanned drones in present day are primarily intel collection and target acquisition, which usually leads to extermination of known and presumed threats to the dispatcher. In the United States, when it comes to the topic of using drones within foreign countries, most of the citizens will agree that it is an efficient way to remotely deal with immediate threats to the country.
According to ProCon.org, “...it is estimated that 174-1,047 civilians have been killed in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia since the U.S. began conducting drone strikes abroad following the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks.” Now you may think that's a lot, but that only comes out to be about 13-75 civilian casualties per year from 2001-2015. They are so accurate, that a drone could strike a house surrounded by crowded houses and the houses remain untouched. Which means less civilian casualties and less U.S. soldiers accidentally being killed by drone
“The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him” (G.K. Chesterton). A soldier is a soldier no matter what. If they fight behind a screen, on the front line, or from a controller as long as they’re protecting this country, the people in it, and the people fighting for it they are honorable. Some think that because one does their fighting from a remote control drone means that they have no understanding of war, and in some ways that is true, but they are still taking someone’s life when they choose to press that button just like the solders on the front line takes someone’s life when they pull the trigger. Both people are fighting the same fight: they love the country they are defending the people in it they just do it from different standpoints. Drones
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.
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
As expressed in the graphic, every country (with the exception of the United States) has a much larger percentage of disapproval than the percentage of approval. For instance, as the U.S. has a low disapproval percentage of 28%, Egypt has an exceptionally high 85% disapproval. In countries throughout the world, drone strikes will do more harm than good. A drone strike could have an extremely negative impact on any type of life. Granted, drone strikes should be enacted more carefully to ensure that civilians are not accidentally