Drones Pros Cons

UAV’s are very good when it comes to keeping civilians alive and compared to other methods they are superb. We take extreme measures to avoid civilian casualties (Sluka 90). Byman explains in his article exactly why drones are so much safer

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)

Drones are an effective counter insurgency tool deployed extensively throughout the world, especially by clandestine intelligence organizations often with the help of the country’s respective Air Force. Not only do they serve as an effective weapon, they minimize human

Drones are not harmless robots, they can be used to drop bombs and even deliver drugs. In May, a man was arrested for trying to fly his drone over the White House fence and another man was arrested last week for flying one into the U.S. open (CNN). Drones could start to be used as suicide bombers, they have the camera all that is needed is a timed explosive. The dangers that drones pose

Drones are not always the best way to go, and are most of the time an unnecessary and non-profit endeavor. This is exemplified by the fact that from 2002 to 2014 only 2 percent of target fatalities by drones have been important militants ("Should the United"). The other 98 percent have been unimportant and unnecessary targets that were not a serious threat to the U.S. This means that the 98 percent that were unnecessary were just a extra waste of resources and did not make enough of a significant difference to justify the endeavor. Also, drone strikes are not effective because they have been proven to be inaccurate. Out of 114 drone strikes issued by the CIA in the countries of Pakistan and Afghanistan, 26 of the drone strikes targeted groups categorized as “other militants.” This means that the affiliation of the targeted groups could not be conclusively determined ("Should the United"). In conclusion, these strikes were with no special goal in mind, only executed to potentially harm terrorist groups. This in essence is another waste of resources which can have unknown consequences. In these types of drone strikes the U.S could be eliminating unimportant targets, or worse, they could inadvertently harm friendly factions or neutral civilians in the region of the strikes. This would again turn more individuals away from the U.S cause by building on the hate against the U.S that

One reason why drones are such an obvious future trend is they weaken terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, and the Taliban. During President Barak Obama’s term, an estimated 3,300 terrorists have been killed including 50 senior leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban (Byman 32-43). By March 2011 33 Al Qaeda and Taliban members killed and from 1100-1800 insurgent fighters (Sluka 89). Three hundred and fifty drone strikes have been made since 2004 (Cronin 44-45). Among the terrorist casualties, one stands out. A Drone strike killed Al-Shabab, killer of 74 in a soccer stadium bombing in Uganda (Klaidman 38-44). A Drone could have prevented the bombing of the soccer stadium before it happened, but the US called off a drone strike because of the

Fortunately, drone strikes are known for being some of the most deadly weapons in the U.S.’s large arsenal. Drones are valued for their endurance, being capable of loitering above a target for days (Source A) due to their lightweight fuselage and fuel-efficient motors. They are also prized for the precision they can demonstrate, having the capability to “kill a person in one room of a house and spare the lives of people in other rooms” (Source A). This is not a feat that can be accomplished by traditional medium- and fighter-bomber aircraft often used in the same roles drones are working to replace. Drones are also capable of minimizing infantry and pilot casualties by keeping them out of the way of hostile snipers, firefights, suicide bombers, antiaircraft fire, landmines, and weather conditions (Source J).

Though military personnel lives are safer with the presence of drones, many who oppose military drones claim that they have increased the death of civilians and do not create safer environments for civilians (Terrill 22). However, drones have been proved to decrease the deaths of civilians due to the technology that allows them to pinpoint their target and strike at that specific target rather than bomb an area that the target is in. For example, in Yemen where many drone strikes have occurred, “civilian death figures… are ‘in the single digits’” (Terrill 22). Drones are claimed to have less collateral damage than the collateral damage caused by manned aerial vehicles. “They strike quickly, and the missile can be diverted from its original target in an unintentional miss” (Hazelton 30). In the drone strikes in Yemen, even President Hadi admits that there are accidental civilian deaths (Terrill 22). But whether ground troops are used, whether manned aerial vehicles are used, or whether drones are used, there will always be a possibility for collateral damage and civilian deaths. However, President Hadi also admits that “Yemen’s air force cannot bomb accurately at night, but US drones do not have any problems doing so” (Terrill 22).

The first recorded drone strike conducted by the CIA was on February 4, 2002, just 5 months after the September 11 terrorist attacks. The intended target was al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden. Instead, the attack killed three innocent villagers scavenging for scrap metal. Today, the number of deaths caused by drones is astounding. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, around 3,000 people have been killed in Pakistan since 2015. In Yemen, those numbers are somewhere between 500 and 700, and in Afghanistan it’s somewhere around 800 and 1,000. These numbers reflect a variety of citizens, including terrorists, civilians, and even children. In total these numbers exceed the amount killed in the September 11 terrorist attacks by thousands.

When the U.S. unexpectedly faced the infamous 9/11 terrorist attacks which left thousands dead and millions dealing with dread and anxiety, the nation’s capital and the Bush administration decided to begin using the comparatively new technology of UAVs more frequently to fight terrorism in Afghanistan. These unmanned aerial vehicles (also known as combat drones) are weapons of war that transport bombs and missiles for precision strikes (“Drones: What are they and how do they work?”). But it wasn’t until President Obama took office that the usage of these drones turned over-excessive; the Obama administration has killed more individuals with UAVs than those civilians who have died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, an approximate and confirmed number of 3,674 including innocent civilians (Zenko). Even though some of the drone strikes that the U.S. has carried out have been successful in eliminating high-profile terrorist suspects, there still

Scott Shane quotes Micah Zenko in his article when he says “… a total of eight Americans have been killed in drone strikes. Of those, only one, the American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who joined Al Qaeda in Yemen and was killed in 2011, was identified and deliberately targeted” (Shane, Zenko 3). Shane is correct when he says that drones should not target Americans, but he fails to mention why they were targeted. These eight Americans were killed because, they were engaged in hostile activity towards the United States. Awlaki was a part of Al Qaeda and was actively plotting to take down the United States. The other seven Americans were not innocent, these people were killed in the blast of drone strikes that were targeting enemy combatants. They were not hostages, but they were still in the immediate vicinity of they hostiles. The other seven were just like Awlaki, they were there to join one of the terrorist groups we are at war with. That is the only way that those citizens were that close to those enemies. The second argument against the use of drones is that drone pilots are at risk of developing psychological disorders. Lindsay Warrior, the author of “Drones and Targeted Killing”, says that “[m]uch of the discussion surrounding drones emphasizes the fact that their use reduces the risk of U.S.

For the majority, I think using drones to attack terrorists globally does not violate international law as long as the U.S. has permission from the country. I think if drones are used for the purpose of self-defense, and do not target civilians or those not participating in hostilities, then, in that regard, drones are legal. Drones can be very beneficiary so long as strikes do not violate international humanitarian laws.

Drones have become a major policy tool in U.S. counterterrorism policy. In at least five countries – Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan – U.S. drones patrol the skies and occasionally are used to launch lethal strikes against suspected terrorists. Drones have also become the primary topic of debate within the policy community.

Drone strikes… a relatively new type of warfare where attacks are made without human interference. Drones have revolutionized and made people reconsider the possibilities of warfare in the United States. The controversy of drone strikes is that it does not seem as good as it seems. The U.S. government has said that drone strikes have decreased the amount of casualties, are cheaper, and have helped in making America safer. However, others believe that it is too good to be true and believe that there have been way more casualties than the government has told citizens, and that it is not fair to other nations who do not have the same technology available for them. The U.S. should be allowed to continue its use of drone strikes abroad because it has far less collateral damage, decreases the amount of soldier casualties, and makes America safer from terrorists groups.

Drones that are currently being used, are targeting individuals who may not be involved in any terrorist