Drones War Pros And Cons

Drones already carry a negative, political connotation. The breaches in sovereignty are a major political issue for involved countries. Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are examples of the United States’ willingness to conduct military strikes without the consent of the governing body within the country. Furthermore, targeted killings are essentially a means for assassinations, which were prohibited under the Reagan administration. However, this fact is abated, as the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki (US Citizen) demonstrated. Given all this information, would the usage of US drones in Iraq only perpetuate more violence, or bring stability to the region? This report will seek to answer this question. Utilizing an interview with an Associate Professor of Homeland Security at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU), Professor Bonner, as a primary source of research, along with secondary sources from accredited cites, this report will explore the dynamics of the drone program as it pertains to the current situation in Iraq.

Drone Warfare; Summary and Overview This essay consists of a thorough analysis and overview on the book titled Drone Warfare by John Kaag and Sarah Kreps. Drone Warfare covers the political, juridical, and ethical aspects of remotely piloted aircrafts known as drones. The book touches on the political ramifications that the United States’ drone program causes and the general public’s opinion on drones. Drone Warfare also talks about the relationship between the drone program and international laws.

Technology is changing the way humans complete certain tasks. Whether it be communicating with others, or using navigation tools for directions, technology affects everyone in some way or another. In fact, technology is changing the way our government fights wars with other countries and terrorist groups. Drones have become one of the most sought after pieces of military equipment in the last decade. They have become one of the many important tools our government uses for counterterrorism policies in the United States. Recently, these defense mechanisms have received a great deal of public attention, which has stirred up much controversy. Many people, including government officials and politicians, question the necessity and ethics of drones

Opponents argue that by removing one of the key restraints to warfare – the risk to one’s own forces – unmanned systems make undertaking armed attacks too easy and will make war more likely. Evidence is beginning to emerge that it is the persistent presence of UAVs sitting over remote villages and towns simply looking for ‘targets of opportunity’ that may be leading to civilian casualties. The CIA oversees drone strikes as part of counterterrorism operations, but US officials refuse to discuss the program publicly. According to a tally by the nonpartisan New America Foundation, since 2004 there have been more than 260 US drone strikes in Pakistan, which the foundation estimates killed between 1,600 and 2,500 people. Not everyone feels comfortable with all this. Critics say that the legal and

The primary complaint made by detractors of the U.S.’s drone strikes are that they cause too many civilian casualties, making them immoral to use (Source K). Drones are actually much less deadly to citizens than conventional forms of warfare,

The US increasingly relies on drones for its counterterrorism efforts, and the world has been watching the manner in which the US employs this new instrument of Airpower. The use of drones has raised concerns over state sovereignty, human rights, and extrajudicial or extraterritorial killings. While US drone strikes are undoubtedly projecting US power and eliminated terrorists, the question has arisen as to whether or not these killings are doing more harm than good. This question is rooted in the concept of US prestige. Whether or not these strikes are “worth it” saves for another debate, but for purposes of this discussion, these drone strikes have contributed to a loss of US prestige in the international community. Pakistan and Yemen, although secretly authorizing US drone operations, publically condemn the US for violating their sovereignty. A survey in 2012 found that 74% of the Pakistani population views the US as their enemy. The execution of US Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki by a drone strike in Yemen received considerable criticism from the US population. Despite the fact that Awlaki had been radicalized and had recruited western individuals for terrorist acts, there was debate as to whether or not he should have been granted a fair trial. A study conducted by The International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic at Stanford Law School found that “The significant global opposition to drone strikes also erodes US credibility in the international community. In 17 of the 20 countries polled by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, the majority of those surveyed disapproved of US drone attacks in countries like Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.” As with Kosovo, the astounding potential of Airpower for achieving effects is attractive, but the long-term consequences of its misuse should not be

Drones have taken the interest of militaries and private companies across the world. The “global market for unmanned aerial vehicles is now $6 billion a year” and that “more than fifty countries moving to acquire drones” Charleston Gazette journalists wrote (Pg1). Most of these are military drones, for private companies and the military to use. Many would argue that offensive and defensive drone use should have many safeguards in place that are backed up by international law. This would be to keep militaries and private users from violating human rights agreements, and to help prevent breaches of privacy. While drone strikes eliminate american casualties, they “also help distance the public from what is going on” as journalist Juan Cole iterated (Pg1) .

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.

As Dwight D. Eisenhower said, “We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it” (Likable Heroes 26). It is essential to fight to end terrorism and the effective means used to wage this battle is to use drones. Like all wars, the War on Terror is fraught with actions that in hindsight may be clearly justified, terrible mistakes, or hotly debated forever. Despite the difficulty, it is still necessary to do everything in our power to stop terrorists, including using drones to target and kill the terrorists. Despite the hypocrisy of going to war to end war, it is the only way when diplomacy fails. Ulysses S. Grant stated that “I have never advocated war except as a means of peace” (Grant 205). Although drones have their faults, they are the best tool we have available for targeting terrorists. Presently, the most practical approach, in terms of American lives and the lives of innocent civilians in other countries, is the use of drones to target terrorists for assassination. This practical advantage justifies the continued development and use of this

Drones strikes should be used in the Middle East because the kill terrorist organizations. Drones kill terrorist organizations by killing their members including important leaders and lower operatives. By doing this drones are cutting a gap in the terrorist organizations. Drones are killing leaders from Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other anti-American militant groups amongst these deaths are 50 senior leaders of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban (Byman

Over the years war has changed dramatically from having front lines and charging with spears to guns and explosives, then it evolved further to poisonous gas and airplanes. Thanks to all of the technology of our generation we have come up with a new form of war. Drone warfare, this is when a robot is controlled by a computer by a human. These drones are capable of dropping bombs and shooting bullets. As a result, this form of warfare is extremely different than anything we have ever used before, it is easy, fast, and doesn't cause as many casualties as previous war techniques. The U.S, at the moment, is only using drones for killing terrorists in the middle east, which sounds like a convenient solution to our problems but sadly it’s not. The

Certain polls suggest that the average American supports the use of drones for counterterrorism efforts. What the average American doesn’t know is since 2014 the U.S. led coalition in Syria and Iraq has conducted over 13,500 strikes in Iraq and Syria. Taking innocent lives and causing destruction in already weak countries. In 1996 the first unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), was born but it wasn’t a combat drone. In Obama's years as president, he dropped 563 strikes almost ten times that of how much Bush dropped in his years, the catch is the 563 from Obama were in nonactive battlefields. In active battlefields, we have performed over 20,000 strikes. Since there are no laws on drone use it makes it easy to commit what many believe to be war crimes. Drones may seem like a good solution to terrorism, but we need a structure of law for drones and those who use them.

In response to deadly terrorist attacks, the US took to Iraq and Afghanistan with whatever new technology they could find, and drones have ever since become a staple of the American strategy in the War on Terror. However, given the imprecision in drone attacks and their tendency to promote radical anti-US ideals, they have proven to neither be an effective nor an ethical means of fighting terror. In order to successfully combat terrorism, the US can look out to the international community, and further engage their assistance in preventing the growth of terrorism. If the US can cut off all sources of funding to growing terrorist networks and create a strong ground coalition with local groups to take back foothold cities from terrorists, there will no longer be a need for drone attacks. If accomplished, the perpetuation of radical sentiments will slow, and the US can implement more creative strategies against terror. Drones are okay if they are delivering a book on terrorism, but let us stop using them to chase after a misplaced notion that drones are an effective solution to

In the early twenty first-century a new type of warfare entered the world stage, the implications and effects of which are barely coming to fruition for those who will have to live with what has been inflicted upon the people of other countries. Famed Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu once said, “the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting”. This is meant to act as a wise proverb about the gruesome act of war. However, with the creation and advances in drone technology this quote has been more than fulfilled, it has guaranteed a perpetuation of a type of war where our government has no limits on the damage it can inflict. In our attempt to subdue, we are not fighting with soldiers, but fighting with machines that bear no burden on the minds of the American people. To the point where it is easy to believe that we are not fighting at all, but the reality of the situation is that drone warfare may be the most atrocious military action inflicted upon other countries by the American government, a monumental lie told to the American people, and a violation of basic international and human rights laws. The likes of which are not infinitely sustainable from a modern policy viewpoint, and will have to be dealt with if the democratic legitimacy of our country wishes to be upheld at all.

In the given context, Dejevsky M. surfaced the argument that Drones are not all bad, but exploiting it will result in unfavourable consequences. Defined by Merriam- Webster, a drone is an unmanned aircraft or ship guided by remote control or onboard computers. (Merriam- Webster, n.d.) They are mostly affiliated with the military, however, other uses include search and rescue, surveillance, traffic and weather monitoring. (IoT Agenda, n.d.) Her assertion of the claim is that drones are not all bad, from the perspective of those who uses them, hence, this write-up aims to expose if drones should be regulated in conjunction with Dejevsky’s argument.