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. Even though drone strikes have an effect on the civilian population in the Middle East, drone strikes should be used because they kill terrorists. They are the best warfare alternative and they require less human involvement. …show more content…
Drones are more durable than humans. Drones are becoming capable of high speeds, torques, g-forces and other stresses humans can’t handle (Anderson and Waxman n.pg.). With these advances, drones can complete missions in dangerous situations that could not be handled by special operatives. Drone pilots have better vision and reaction time as well (Anderson 14). This can be especially useful when they are in battle and there is little breathing room and little time for any reactions. Another advancement is that drones have a long “loiter” time over the target and can clock many hours of surveillance (Anderson 14). If drones can be in the air for long periods of time it increases the surveillance time, which is beneficial because it allows the drone pilots to increase accuracy as well as identify any “roadblocks” to the mission. For example, in December 2009 “the US fired tomahawks at a suspected terrorist training camp in Yemen, and over 30 people were killed in the blast. Had drones been used, a drones real time would probably have spotted the large number of women and children and the attack would have been aborted. Even if the strike had gone forward the drones far smaller warhead would have kill fewer innocents” (Byman
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.
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.
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.
It’s important to acknowledge that yes, drone strikes have brought about a completely different type of warfare, one which the original thinkers behind just war theory probably could not fathom. As put by Yemeni activist Farea al-Muslimi, “When there is a normal war, people can hide, or they can stay away from the military – they can make choices and be careful, but when drones come, you just don’t know when you’ll be next. The fear is incredible.” Drone usage comes at a great cost; the psychological effect of constantly being on guard on Yemen’s civilians are perhaps a new aspect of war that should be considered when considering the behaviors considered ‘just’ during
Ever since, the U.S. military has advanced significantly in remote targeted killings, and the drone has become notably popular. These aircrafts are used primarily to spy and eventually kill an individual without having to put army boots down on surrounding ground. Drones are especially important for military missions that are deemed too dangerous for military soldiers to physically be there (Tice). The use of a drone can “get the job done” without having to be concerned with the common death and trauma of American soldiers, that ground combaters encounter daily. Drones are unmanned machines that fly with the help of lithium-polymer batteries, and give information to the drone pilot through attached sensors (Tice). These sensors have the ability to measure the distance and speed of the target, which allows the drone pilot to make an accurate hit on the victim (Tice). Missiles, that are secured onto the drone, are prompted to launch when the drone pilot deems the time is appropriate. Although this newly invented technology greatly assists the United States military in fighting war and potentially preventing danger, I believe that unmanned drones are causing more harm for our future warfare. The use of remotely-controlled aircrafts, in warfare, profoundly desensitizes the drone pilots, to the terrors of war because it makes killing too easy and ultimately
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), also known as Drones have been used since the civil war, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. The idea of unmanned aerial vehicles had been growing more and more with every conflict our nation has come across. The use of drones is now in full effect, ranging from military operations to relief efforts. Controversies around the increased use of drones include target killings by the military and surveillance by drones within the U.S. Target killing has shown to be effective and favorable against terrorism but some have seen it as a violation of human rights
Drone Strikes are used by the United States in countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to aid the war on terror. The proper usage of attack drones by the U.S. has been fiercely debated since President Obama has greatly increased the use of attack drones. Those who are against it argue that the strikes are not ethical and harm too many civilians for the number of possible threats the strikes eliminate. However, because these strikes are very beneficial to the war on terror and save numerous lives by combating threats and protecting American soldiers, our military should continue drone use abroad.
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.
In this day and age the face of warfare has changed completely. The implementation of drone warfare to the modern day military doctrine has been a strong point of controversy since its origins. One of the biggest controversies facing drone is the killing of unarmed civilians across the Middle East. Unmanned: Americas Drone Wars is a documentary focusing on targets, or should I say murders of innocent civilians throughout Pakistan. The documentary steps through first hand accounts on both ends of the spectrum, drone pilot and drone victims. The major point that is examined, is the United States wrong in using drone warfare, is controversial just like any other thing in American politics and warfare.
With the new delivery capabilities, the time it takes for packages to be delivered across long distances could be cut down to a matter of hours. The uses for drones extend far beyond the single-minded idea that drones are killing machines with no other capabilities.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Drone strikes don’t help us solve our current situations but instead they make more problems worse. Al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula extremist grew from 300 in 2009 to 700 in 2012 due to drone attacks. The U.S. should stop it’s use of drones strikes because it doesn't help. Drone strikes lead to the creation of more extremists than reducing the number as intended.
...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)
Drones will help reduce cost of funding the military. Drones will replace different types of supplies and weapons. There will no longer be a need many military tanks. With the money that the government saved on the army, the government could use that money more useful things that can benefit the future of the country in a good way.