Drones Argumentative Essay

The use of drones domestically and militarily have been going up more and more in the past decade. Drones have been apart of many operations in the past decade, but many people oppose the use of them. The things that will be covered will be that there are no better alternatives to drones, the threat of drones and drone strikes destabilize and make it tougher for terrorist organizations to meet and train, and the legality of drone strikes. The use of drone strikes on terrorists is justified and should be utilized since it is the best way to deal with terrorist threats across the globe.

Drones allow U.S. officials to take down insurgents with precision and allow there to be less civilian casualties than a cruise missile or a firefight. “In December

If a drone was used during that bombing and not a cruise missile, those victims could have been identified as women and children and the attack could have been called off, saving the lives of 30+ people killed. Drones are more accurate than cruise missiles are and the damage area caused by drones is far less significant than a cruise missiles. “A study conducted by the Columbia Law School estimates that 35 percent of the victims of drone strikes in 2011 were civilians. In contrast, American counterterrorism officials put the number as low as 2.5 percent. Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan claimed that “there hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities we’ve been able to develop” (Etzioni 3). Whatever source is more credible in the eyes of the public, both statistics are low considering how much other news outlets blow civilian casualties out of proportion. The source by counterterrorism officials is more credible since it is a direct source and should be treated as so. Imagine

“The first requirement for all drone strikes is to establish “positive identification” of the target in question, which constitutes “reasonable certainty that a functionally and geospatially defined object of attack is a legitimate military target in accordance with the law of war and applicable ROE [rules of engagement]” (Etzioni 5). Drones are not just used to kill possible insurgents. To use a drone, there has to be positive identification of said target. The attack has to be a legitimate military target, not just a random target that officials think is a possible target. “The second criterion for a targeted killing to be considered lawful by the administration is that the capture of the target must be “infeasible.” This is understood to mean “undue risk to U.S. personnel conducting a potential capture operation.” Good enough for any sensible person” (Etzioni 6). Capture of a target must not be possible, since doing a capture operation could endanger the lives of U.S. personnel who are conducting said mission. Is it worth it to risk the lives of American troops to capture an insurgent who would most likely resist capture? A drone strike can result in no American casualties and a killed terrorist. Many people who oppose drone strikes still question the legality of drones, since they are flying assassins, killing or wounding those who are caught in its blast zone. Drone strikes are extensively reviewed legally to justify the