Danger Of Drones

Drones are a better alternative to traditional methods of war because they kill less civilians, are legal under international law, and also that they do not create more terrorists than they kill. These facts will prove that older methods of war such as mortars, and bombs pale in comparison to the drone and the effect they have and will continue to have in the war on terror.

Byman continues with this argument, stating that drones achieve their intended goal without risking American lives. Because drones only require a remote control to pilot, they do not put a member of the US Air Force at risk. This not only reduces the amount of military deaths in foreign countries, but it allows drones to travel to places that are deemed too dangerous for actual US pilots. Byman states that in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, “the government exerts little or no control over remote areas, which means that it is highly dangerous to go after militants hiding out there. Worse yet, in Pakistan and Yemen, the governments have at times cooperated with militants” (Byman 2). The majority of the time, sending in an actual military force is simply too dangerous. Instead of sending people, the US military can send robots.

The general argument made by Daniel Byman in his 2013 article “Why Drones Work: The Case for Washington’s Weapon of Choice” is that the United States should continue the use of drones. More specifically, he argues that drones are a “necessary instrument” for combating terrorism due to their effectiveness (Byman 32). He writes that drones do their jobs “remarkably well” by offering a “low-risk way” to target threats of national security (Byman 32). In addition, he writes that, in most cases, drones are the “most sensible” option, because they reduce the chances of civilians being “caught in the kill zone” (Byman 34, 35).  In this article, Byman is suggesting that the “critics” of drones need to realize that alternatives to drone strikes are

In recent years, drones have begun to do jobs that we didn’t think was possible. Soon, you may find a drone in front of your home, carrying the pepperoni pizza you ordered 20 minutes ago, or see drones putting out a fire in your neighborhood. Now, drones are being used as soldiers in our war against terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, these drones have caused many problems for the U.S. over the years. The use of drones fighting for us causes more problems than actually fixing them (Source A)

Although pilots are still being used, the United States military is starting to use drones more and more, because drones are the next step to aerial warfare, and the next step to winning wars. The United States military is smart for using drones. The reason is because if they use drones it means that the percentage of completed missions are more likely to go up, because the drones are more precise on hitting their target or gathering intel such as pictures, where the enemy is, and much more. Using drones also lowers the casualties for soldiers deaths, and civilian deaths. Drones have less of a chance to kill civilians, it has been proven that drones are more precise on hitting the intended target, but that does not mean that drones don't kill civilians, they are just less likely to kill civilians than manned aircraft. Although drones cost a lot of money to build and to be able to fuel them and keep them in the air, they are going to make our country more safe, protect more soldiers lives, and help end wars. These drones have much work that needs to be done to them, but they are slowly but surely advancing into modern day and becoming the next big thing. The biggest thing that needs to be done to help advance these drones onto the next level, is training pilots better on how to fly and control them and keep control of them. It’s different flying a real airplane verses a drone behind a computer screen, it’s a lot more difficult. It has come to a conclusion and down to facts that drones will be the future of aerial

Top counterterrorist advisors from both the Bush and Obama administrations champion drone use as the most effective tool in the war on terror. They are relatively cheap, effective at killing terrorist with minimal civilian casualties. They protect US troops by preventing “boots on the ground” scenarios and ultimately make America safer. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is quoted as say, “the only game in town in terms of trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership” An important question to ask is: Are these short term advantages worth the long term repercussions. Michael J Boyle examines this question in, “The Cost and Consequences of Drone Warfare.” He first question the validity of the claim that drones are effective at killing

In the article “Why Drones Work: The Case for Washington’s Weapon of Choice” by Daniel L. Byman many topics about the use and opinions of U.S. attack drones. U.S. attack drones are used in place of full raids or large bombings to take out terrorists. Most of the they the cost of an attack is greater than the drone itself. Many people have mixed feelings about the drones, but many people think that they cause many civilian casualties.

The effectiveness of drones to kill terrorists is well documented. Over the last four years, the Obama administration has signed off on over 400 drone strikes. (Why Drones Work, 1) Many senior terrorist leaders have been killed and many terrorist groups have been denied access to their sanctuaries. These drone strikes have been relatively inexpensive in cost of materials, caused low numbers of civilian casualties, and were risk-free for United States forces. (Why Drones Work, 1) However, even though the use of drone strikes has these proven advantages, several disadvantages are

Yes, it’s significant how the military is saving money by buying drones. But, scan at the negatives that the use of drones have brought. Innocent people are being killed, by the actions of their fellow citizens. Babies, children of all ages are being killed by this act. Think about this. Our military, the United States military is killing innocents. What if that was your child? Let that sink in. If you were in the poor innocent people’s situation, what would you do? Again, let that sink in. I believe there is a better solution. I have hope, that the use of drones will not be needed. Even though, yes the soldiers feel safe using these devices, me and so many other people do not feel safe with them using drones to attack. Not only are drones killing people, but also creating an army of people who despise us, the United States of America. When people are irritated and desire to revenge their family member, friend, etc. they move after the person or people who killed them. Putting not only the murder in danger, but his or her family in danger too. And, our military is using drones. Killing people, who despise us, so they create an army so they can kill us. Meaning, not only are the soldiers and their family in danger, but the entire United States. People have been held hostage for the crimes that our military has committed. So again, how do you feel about the usage of

It is irrefutable that it is just a matter of time before drones, also known as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), become a crucial part of the US Military. They effectively weaken terrorist groups, mainly Al Qaeda and ISIS or ISIL, and are much less dangerous to civilians and United States soldiers compared to other methods. Those who are skeptical of the potential role of drones in the US Military are simply ill informed.

Undoubtedly, governments do not wish to kill civilians in their wars against terrorism. With the use of drones,

In discussions of military drones, one controversial issue has been whether drone are an efficient way to undertake military actions. In 2013, “sixty-eight percent of Americans” believed drones were an efficient way of counter-terrorism (Fuller). Sadly, this majority of Americans are morally wrong due to the fact that drones are inaccurate and an inefficient way of counter-terrorism.

All the reasons why not to put the use of drones in place all relate in some way to the well-being of civilians, as would the justifications of why they should be equipped. What the civilians know from the government’s public announcements and private decisions, how the killings done by drones affect the people, to the quintessence of their security are all important and connected to each other. That said, “More than 87 countries own some type of surveillance or attack drone, changing the way nations conduct war and threatening to begin a new arms race as governments scramble to counterbalance their adversaries” (Drones). More than ever, there is a race worldwide to come with the better machine—the mechanical soldier to fight for its country. Safety of civilians come with this, as if one country were to attack with drones, one of the only ways to counter that for the people’s sake is with the invaded country’s own drones. Iran, in 2010, revealed its own drone, the initial armed one at that, and China itself exhibited “twenty-five drone models,” with six-hundred and eighty drone programs of development in play by governments, research institutes, and companies globally in 2011 in comparison to the mere one-hundred and ninety-five in 2005 (Drones). “The Teal Group, a defense-consulting firm, estimated in June 2013 that the global market for the research, development, and procurement of armed drones would nearly double over the next decade from $5.2 billion annually to $11.6 billion”(Drones). Of course, another note is that “In a process that the experts call ‘monopoly erosion’, drone use is spreading fast, confirming that they are becoming the new

Using drones as weapons in warfare blinds the steersman from the reality that is war. In combat, people are viciously murdering thousands of human beings, many whom are innocent. By sending in drones to perform the decimation, it makes the actuality of what is happening seem less terrible, for the murder is not directly stricken from person to person. There is an article that explains the circumstances of a drone pilot, which quotes, “He had delivered this deathblow without having been in any danger himself. The men he killed, and the marines on the ground, were at war. They were risking their hides. Whereas he was working his scheduled shift in a comfortable office building, on a sprawling base, in a peaceful country” (Bowden, “The Killing Machines”). When employing drones to kill, it is as if one is putting on a mask to cover up all the shame and sin being demonstrated. Some believe that if the murder is done blindly, it does not seem as bad or immoral. But it does not matter if the killing is performed halfway across the world at the push of a button, or soldier to soldier on the battle field. The level of immorality is the same – if not greater with drones. While on the battlefield, you are completely aware of the situation and are in the same position as the people you are fighting, whereas with

Drones have made terrorist attacks fast and easy to deal with and will do the same in wars. Every war has pain and suffering and builds a want in people to end it rather they’re winning or losing. Although those feelings are negative without them we would be desensitized,