Analysis Of David Bell's In Defense Of Drones

Drones represent something that is both wholly new and wholly old. Wholly new, because for the first time in human history, technology has allowed the soldier (or airman) doing the killing to entirely removed from physical danger, safely ensconced within an air-conditioned trailer on the outskirts of Las Vegas. While drones have caused an entirely new asymmetry or disparity in force, they are only an expression of one of the fundamental tenants of warfare, that a military force seeks to vanquish their opposition from the field with as little human cost to their own side as possible. This truth is the basis for David Bell’s article, “In Defense of Drones: A Historical Argument.” Gregoire Chamayou dismisses Bell—and any defense of drone warfare

The battle would not have ended differently if Maxim guns had not employed; the Mahdi’s would have lost and suffered terrible casualties in the process, and more British and Egyptian soldiers would have died than ultimately did. The tool with which the British killed the Mahdi soldier’s does not ultimately matter, as the end result is the same. In this particular instance, a bullet fired from a Maxim is no qualitatively different a than bullet fired from a Lee-Metford rifle. This logical structure can be applied to the present day as well: a Hellfire launched from a Predator is no qualitatively different than a Hellfire launched from an Apache. The projectile carries the lethal force to the target, not the launcher. If one is considered an

The nations of the world have gathered together and declared certain weapons, such as gas or biological agents, unlawful for use against all combatants, rendering the association moot. The technological development period for drones occurred during a time when there were no major wars with peer-state competitors. This has resulted in drones only being used against much less advanced forces. This is not an intentional