Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
About drone warfare
Uses of drones in counter terrorism
The Advantages Of Drone Outweigh The Disadvantages
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: About drone warfare
Have you ever looked in the sky and saw a type of aircraft that looked too compact to be an actual plane and looked nothing like a helicopter. Well, that aircraft that you saw, was probably a drone. Since the terrorist attack September 11, 2001, the United States have been using drones to carry out missions like killing terrorist group members all over the world. There are numerous pros and cons of utilizing drones and not everyone conquers with using them on the battlefield. Drones should be used against our enemies around the world. Ultimately, drones should be used against terrorists around the globe and here is the reason why, “they ultimately make the United States safer by annihilating groups of terrorists around the world” (Drones ProCon). Not only do drones make the …show more content…
Some cons of utilizing drones are “in some cases, drones make more terrorists than they kill. People who witness loved ones be injured or killed by drone attacks can, consequently, be motivated to join operations that are against the United States” (Drones ProCon). Occasionally “drone strikes may target individuals that are not involved with any terrorist group” (Drones ProCon). Not only do drones falsely target people, they moreover “kill large numbers of civilians and traumatize local populations” (Drones ProCon). Would you be traumatized if a compact unmanned aircraft came to your town or city and started to drop bombs. I sure would be. “Drone strikes mainly kill low-value targets that are not an immediate danger to the United States” (Drones ProCon). “Drone strikes are secretive” and numerous people think that they “lack enough legal oversight” (Drones ProCon). Drone strikes also make it to where if something goes wrong, “citizens cannot hold their leaders responsible” (Drones ProCon). A drone strike also, apparently, “violates the sovereignty of other states” (Drones
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.
“Government’s targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in two drone strikes, both in Yemen, far from any armed conflict zone.” (“Targeted Killings”). Drones or unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) is the technology that has taken war and fighting to a brand new level. The technology is believed to lower the use of troops and life loss in the wars that are happening today. Can that same technology be considered dangerous? Or are the side effects something that can simply be considered a small cost for something better? Drones demonstrate a growth in technological advances , and also the world. Although as brilliant this technology might be, it brings a threat to the people.
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.
One of the benefits of the Drone is preserving U.S. life. Drones can now replace surveillance missions inside enemy territory without risking the pilots capture and death. Drones are able to slip across borders without risking lives of pilots. They can linger in foreign countries and scout potential threats for a long period of time. They can then decide when to strike the target with minimal civilian casualties. (E-IR) Drones are also able to strike a target with better targeting strategies due to the pilot being removed from the cockpit. (E-IR) Besides the capability for a drone to just hunt down a ...
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.
There had been Pros and Cons since President George W. Bush officially declared the "Global war on Terror"(GWOT) on September 20, 2011.
Drones have been said to have the potential of decreasing civilian deaths, however there is no data to support this assumption. In May Obama asserted the guidelines for drones: that a terrorist must pose "’a continuing and imminent threat’ to Americans, that no other government can address the threat effectively; and that there is ‘near-certainty’ no civilians will be killed or injured.” (Gorman, Siobaun). These standards seem reasonable; albeit, Human Rights Watch studied six strikes in Yemen and declared that each...
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
Drones are cheaper and more effective than putting boots on the ground. According to Brooking.edu, “Over 50 senior leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban who are not easily replaced…” have been killed by drone strikes. Another 3,250 al Qaeda, Taliban, and Jihadist operatives have also been killed by drone strikes. They are also worthy to be used for the reason that they are cheaper than manned aircraft attacks and U.S. military attacks. U.S. manned aircraft attacks cost $16,900 per hour to operate while drones cost about $3,679 per hour to operate. You might think that's a lot of money, but it cost $2.1 million per year for each soldier deployed in Afghanistan.
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
Drones are also called unmanned aerial vehicles. They come in various sizes for many purposes of uses. Drones are known by different names such as “Killer Drone” or “Spy” or “Surveillance Drone” as they are mostly use to decimate enemy and harm civilians, which is why drones received negative feedback from the public. Not all people use drones in warfare, they also use them as a hobby to film and entertain. Despite drones have negative sides, they also have positive sides as well.
Since Barack Obama has been in the White House, drones have killed over 3,300 Al Qaeda, Taliban, and other terrorist operatives (Byman 32-43). That is 3,300 fewer terrorist operatives in this world. The deaths of these terrorists is just one of the benefits of using drone strikes in the Middle East. However, the use of drones is a controversial topic because some believe it is unethical warfare. For example, drone strikes affect the civilian population by including unintended targets, which causes hate towards America.
As we view the news in today’s world, by viewing the news of U.S. being present in the Middle East, we often hear about the information of drones either being sent out for attacks or they are used as reconnaissance to spy on what certain organizations are doing. The government, in recent years have been developing them and adapting the use of the technology for