“We do not kill our cattle the way the US is killing humans in Waziristan with drones. I no longer love blue skies. In fact, I now prefer grey skies. The drones do not fly when the skies are grey.” - Rafiq Rehman, after the drone strike on his residence killed his mother It was the 24th of October, 2012. The last day of Ramadan in the Islamic lunar calendar, a day before Eid. Mamana Rehman was in her garden picking okra; her two grandchildren were playing a little further away, albeit within eyeshot, while her son was out to get groceries. Without caution, a US CIA Predator drone landed just on the Rehman family’s residence, destroying everything in its radius. The house was in ashes, along with the village. Mamana Rehman was just another victim of collateral damage. Meanwhile, former CIA Director Leon Panetta, gave an unmoved response about her stance on drones: “Very frankly, it’s the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership” ; once again highlighting the immense advantage the drones have in terms of their range, diversity and their contribution to international security. The two conflicting views on the use of these drones are evidently clear, making this one of the mostly hotly debated topics around the globe. Whereas one side heavily argues the advantages of drones in vast diversity, and their role in achieving the ‘greater good’ , the other side maintains that nothing outweighs loss of a human life. Each human life is as important as the other, and to save one you cannot destroy the other. To deem any breathing body in any corner of the globe as ‘collateral damage’ is a pathetic indictment directly insulting to humanity. Contrary ... ... middle of paper ... ...nes. Sending in drones instead of military personnel also means losing out on the invaluable intel that perhaps would have been obtained if the latter were used. A captured terrorist can offer all sorts of precious leads, which a dead terrorist cannot. The prospect of a war is disturbing and threatening to countries in general is because of the risk of losing human lives is involved. In triumph and defeat alike, nations lose countless human lives. It is this very risk that gives a human factor to these wars, making them ugly and unpleasant. Specializing in drones dehumanizes war, revolving it into a match of technological advancement and economy between states. Once drones are established as an essential form of warfare in developed countries, wars will become more frequent and lengthier, as the risk that was once present in medieval wars has fallen exponentially.
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 ...
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.
NB: I would like to state a couple of points about the CIA’s drone operations. The CIA is not limited by war zones and is sanctioned to conduct covert operations in any area that is considered significant. Moreover, the executive branch does not blatantly sanction CIA operations without pondering over the information presented to it. Also, there is a congressional oversight committee that sets parameters in which the organization can operate within; these are usually agreed behind closed doors or during classified sessions. This does not mean that all participants concerned do not make bad judgment calls.
The drones would take care of the strikes and that would be that. No soldiers would be hurt or even die while the drones were doing their job. DeBrabander then makes a statement, ". . . with less skin in the game, the less worried their loved ones will be . . .," momentarily makes readers believe that the drones do serve a great purpose. However, through effective comparison DeBrabander leads his readers to logically infer that the drones must also be responsible for the death toll that they will bring with the airstrike. It then becomes clear to the reader that the ". . . drones will be tempting for our leaders . . ." our society feels that once we start using drones, we would be heading down a dark
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
It can be asserted that with current technology and supervision drones lack the stability required to be successful and safe and in actuality are counter-effective because these drones create an unsupervised means of power that could quickly spiral out of control. The drone program fails to decrease the death count of war, increase the intelligence needed to dismantle terrorist cells and be secure against hackers. As a result, drones are counterproductive, and in truth create a newfound terrorism. At the end of the day, the only means to eradicate the enemy is to make them a friend.
(Custom Reader 104) This topic intrigued me because I haven’t really thought about if the American citizens had to run in fear for their lives, knowing a drone flying around your safe territory could randomly eliminate you at any time. This made me wonder if situations like this created enmity or jealousy towards the safeguarded citizens belonging to the aggressor. The article highlights O’Connell’s dismay that the misuse and misplacement of drones within ethical bounds has fanned fire into the flames, only making those opposed to the United States angrier. (106) While O’Connell’s argument is definitely sincere in caring for the well-being of other beings, I believe that there can definitely situation in which another hostile would resort to hiding within the safe zones, which would endanger those who are immediately surrounding him and those who he may be plotting against. While this does not intrinsically warrant deployment of drones to search for and eliminate the target, it forces a great burden on to the shoulders of the CTU and the government that I’m sure no person would
“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
Richard Matheson’s famed short story ‘Button, Button’ is often alluded to as a simplistic representation of drone policy. Imagine a man offered you a box with a big red button on it. He tells you if you press it, you will receive a hefty sum of money, no questions asked. There is only one consequence: someone you don’t know will be killed. It’s an interesting dilemma – would you press it, knowing some nameless person’s life rests in your hands?
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.
...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)
Living in the digital age where we enjoy the various fruits of latest technological tools and advancements, then at the same time we cannot escape from their hidden or apparent harms. Also, it is a fact that some gadgets supported by these technological advancements are much capable to bring destruction and disaster then construction and convenience. The same goes for the Drone Technology which since past 200 years is being used to create turbulence at the global level. It has proved to be a powerful investigator and bomber at the same time. Drones are specifically associated with military actions and the countries having used them for surveillance purposes include UK, USA, Italy, Japan, Austria, Australia etc. The list of victim counties or nations is much bigger in contrast. Some prominent victims of Drone Air Strikes include Congo, Venice, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. However, it is also an undeniable fact that the massive production and usage of Drones got multiplied in the 21st century.
Drones are an emerging technology that has countless benefits and a myriad of intangible side-effects. I will clearly explain how drones effect on our lives by exploring the Social, Cultural, Political and Environmental impacts drone technology presents in our lives today.
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