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. Those who oppose the use of drones in warfare claims it violates international law. They believe that the strikes have no justification therefore violating international law. (Moskowitz) They claim that the benefits of the usage of drones do not outweigh the cons of using drones. The opposition claim that civilian casualties make up 2-10% of total fatalities from drones firing on wrong targets or the civilians are collateral damage.(Globalresearch) The dissentient think it causes more unrest than peace in some regions due to the collateral damage caused to buildings and civilians and is another sign of American arrogance. (ABC News)Even though their points are valid, these reasons do not warrant the cease of drone activity. 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 ... ... middle of paper ... ...s means the drone is capable of attacking anything and anywhere at any time. The drone is able to patrol areas in Afghanistan and when a threat is identified it can either send in a combat drone or if the combat drone is already on patrol it is able to eliminate the target. The drone is equipped with hellfire missiles that is an air to surface missile that can decimate any land target. (E-IR) Examples of the Strategic Stealth Tactical Striking is in February 7th, 2002, when the CIA used a Predator drone to attack a convoy of SUV’s full of al Qaeda terrorists. Another Example is November 3, 2002, The CIA used a predator Drone to fire a hellfire missile into a car killing an al Qaeda leader. Both these attacks aren’t capable of being carried out without risking many lives but thanks to the drone we are able to carry out such task without the potential of an injury.
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.
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 for Obama in the 2008 elections. The Obama Administration did maintain the policy of Bush 43 of using massive troops, such as the Afghan surge in 2009, but steadily reverted to the draconian measure of using drones. The arrivals of Hagel and Brennan, in agreement with VP Biden’s view, earlier this year made a better case for this change from counterinsurgency to counterterrorism (NYT’s “In Step on ‘Light Footprints’, Nominees Reflect A Shift”). This is where there is a departure from Bush 43.
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.
In contrast to this, drones strikes violate the authority of the counties they attack, most attacks are carried out without the authorization of the country .Pakistani Prime Sharif said that the "use of drones is not only a continued violation of our territorial integrity but also detrimental to our resolve at efforts in eliminating terrorism from our country... I would therefore stress the need for an end to drone attacks."( Anderson ). How are terrorist groups sopost to respect us when the example set is that invading other countries is complete okay. Not to mention that the fury by them and the rest of the country could lead someday to a devastating war or a massive attack. Adding to this United Nations ' Human Rights Chief has called US drone strikes a “violation of sovereignty” and have forced for investigations into the legality of the attacks. More of a reason for them to be remove from our
Three-thousand deaths have resulted in drone attacks and only 1.5 percent of these deaths were “high profile” personnel. Out of these deaths about 20 percent were either civilian or children. This statistic only account for the known drone attacks (Galliott, Jai, and Bradley Strawser). When drones were first invented its intensions were mainly for surveillance. Over the years they have been modified and upgraded to perform tasks that can even match manned aerial vehicles which leads to the first argument for drones. With the use of drones it limits the amount of soldiers in dangerous situations. Drones are controlled by a pilot that sits in a safe command room with a high resolution feed of the area around the drone. The pilots that control the drones use a joystick to control the drone’s main abilities. Many investigations have been placed on drone operators and the environment surrounding them and the investigators state that the control over the drones simulate a video game. Since the operation of drone simulates a video game it is said that it takes away our emotional connection of the horrific side of warfare. If emotions were to be taken out of warfare taking a life of another person would be inhumane and unethical.
Drones are known to be extremely accurate and can take out a target with minimal damage to non targeted, surrounding areas. There has been some controversy regarding drone strikes, there have been reports of civilian casualties from drone strikes. Although drone strikes have killed civilians before, they should continue to use them because the gain of killing a high valued target is greater than the loss. Drones strikes are used as an alternative to a manned fighter jet. They keep human lives out of harm’s way by not putting them in the line of fire.
The main reason for the uprising of drones in the military was to prevent casualties of military personnel that would be in the battlefield during the war on terrorism. Using drones in order to spy on enemies has been proven to be much safer than sending in human spies, as their lives are put at risk when trekking into enemy territories. However, drones have also proven to be very costly for the government to buy and use, being that they can be shot down at any time by enemy or terrorist groups, and though much money is lost from manufacturing the drone, there will be no humans injured in the spy mission. Despite the many uses of drones in the military, studies have shown that the U.S. Government has spent nearly $2.9 Billion on drone research and development during the fiscal year 2016 (Smith, p.4). Because of the ever-increasing price of drone development for both businesses and the military, the price margins for market drones continue to increase in worth, limiting the availability of drones to the general
The famous author and political commentator, Charles Krauthammer, thinks we should go back to the way we were before September 11, 2001. Although, there’s always going to be those people out there that are opposed to an issue, the vast majority agree that drone strikes are an necessity to war, and fighting terrorism. Furthermore, Most Americans are smart enough to realize going back to our old ways would be foolish, and extremely detrimental to our beloved country. Although drones may seem like there is more terror produced by them, they are still helping to save, millions of dollars, countless Americans lives, and they also help protect our nation’s borders, and finally they are a much more precise killing machine.
Over the course of the 21st century, the United States’ use of unmanned aerial vehicles (also commonly referred to as drones) has increased substantially. In the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center, the United States’ government began using military strategies incorporating drones to eliminate terrorists and other threatening extremist groups. Multiple positive and negative factors arise with the discussion of this topic, and has proven to be controversial to the American population. Overall, drones have demonstrated to be extremely useful with combatting terrorists and should continue being implemented in the military. Drones are powerful weapons that provide stealthy and lethal attacks on enemies of the United States.
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.
Not only are drone strikes harmful but they are also against international law the death of innocents reports that after many separate reports
...only imagine how hazardous this world we live in become. Amongst countries this can become an international competition to make drones to be used as a factor. When other nations see this particular country is using some type of technology to improve their military system then they would want part of it as well. The drone practice can cause to escalate if other countries adopt to this new technology for their own reason of protection. There will be no turning back because the government of that country would take advantage of these drones to use it towards the citizens instead of using for “terrorist”. The use of these drones is definitely immoral and unethical but some may argue that the of drones as protection against “terrorist” even though as we can see it kills innocent people, creates more terrorists, causes psychological disorders, and violates privacy. (Cole)
Are drones a good machine to use in warfare? Drones are unpiloted armed machines, controlled by experts (usually soldiers) thousands of miles away. While people might believe that the use of drone in war will benefit the United States and other countries, they are actually more harmful to people, both mentally and physically. By defining the necessity of people the recognize the harms of drones in people, by refuting counter arguments of those who believe the use of drones is beneficial, and by presenting information and arguments from documents, it will be obvious from the information presented that drones are not the right way to go, and they will be harmful instead of beneficial for people.
Drones are the most deadly weapon, not including WMDs, (Weapons of Mass Destruction), because they integrate massive amounts of information collected from land, sea, and sky with the most advanced technology. As such the question remains, whether the military shall be allowed to use this new instrument of war. Since history tends to repeat when it comes to warfare, the more advanced the weapons and the more people die. The flip side is that these unmanned drones can save many lives, are used to defend countries,