Why Do People Use 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.

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 very useful during warfare, from delivering supplies to soldiers, to leading reinforcements to the right direction, to actually being reinforcements with the missile technology implied into a variety of them. “Drones could also be delivering emergency medical supplies, fighting fires, and protecting endangered animals in Africa” (Source A). Not only can they deliver supplies such as food and water, but they can also deliver medical need that most troops require. Drones also stop attacks before they happen, which

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

Drones, a more common name for UAVs, are remotely piloted aerial vehicles which are used primarily by the military to perform extended surveillance and intelligence gathering missions. Initially, drones were created as a necessity for effective and convenient surveillance; however, over time the use of drones has been shaped to fit the demands of society. With growing threats of terrorism, militaries across the world began expanding the assimilation of drones into warfare, establishing a war tactic based upon technology called drone warfare. Robert Stacy outlines the development of drones over time and states, “Drone warfare represents one of the most dramatic developments in the United States’ continual effort to maintain military superiority by implementing new technology” (“Drone Warfare”). Stacy makes note of the United States’ extensive implementation of technology, specifically drones, in order to maintain its dominance as a superpower.

Is safe to use drone in war and use them here in the United States to protect us? I believe that it is safe to us drones in warfare because it saves people lives. The use of drones in war may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing to use. Over the course of this paper I will show you what all drones are good for and some of where they are not the greatest. I hope I will be a get help to the side that I am trying to show the positive of drones in warfare.

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

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).

“The first recorded use of attack drones occurred on Aug. 22, 1849 when the Habsburg Austrian Empire launched 200 pilotless balloons armed with bombs against the revolution-minded citizens of Venice.” (Brett Holman, 2009). Today drones are launched from allied countries, and are remotely controlled by pilots in the United States. Since drones are remotely operated, ground troops and aircraft pilots risk of getting hurt is minimized. Drones are very effective and create few errors. According to Peter Bergen (2012), in 2012 there has been 153 drone strikes in Pakistan, and no civilian casualties have been reported. Nations around the World questions whether drone strikes need more

Warfare is an ever evolving aspect to human nature. Throughout human history, man has always invented new ways to kill one another. With the new current war on terrorism this idea still holds true. With recent advances in robotics, mankind has developed a new type of warfare. This new type of asymmetric warfare is fought against individuals that do not wear a uniform or have a sponsored country. This condition has made for a new type of weapon system to fight this type of warfare. These new weapons to fight the current war are called drones. “These drones provide a real time solution for the new faster paced warfare” (Rienhart). There is a lot of debate on the current use of drones in warfare and if they should be used to kill. Some of the debated topics include: success rate, civilian casualties, legality, cost and the lack of human boots on the ground. The drone has provided an answer to the new high tempo of the current war and is having “great success on disabling the terrorist networks around the Globe” (Rienhart). This is why our country must continue to use and develop our drone program to stay ahead of our enemies and take advantage of this new weapon.

Drones are a safe way of eliminating casualties by using their extreme precision and accuracy to effectively neutralize the target. It has been estimated that less that 1,100 people have been killed since the US started using drones to attack foreign countries since the terrorist attack in September 2001, which is approximately 12% of all civilian deaths (Singh). However, in WWII, the percentages of civilian deaths as a result of total war we between 40% and 60 % (Saletan).

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).

Since the use of drones has been used on a much larger scale in the United States military, there has been some skepticism regarding the ethical implication of such machines in recent years (Source H). While 62% of Americans approve of the use of drone strikes other countries are in strong opposition of the handling of drones, such as China and Japan. However recent statistics have shown that drones execute fewer civilians than any other military weapon to date. Not only are they cheaper than traditional aircraft, but they also significantly decrease the risk of soldiers developing PTSD over the course of their service. (Source J).

By using drones billions of dollars are being saved.“With approximately $5 billion allocated for drones in the 2012 Department of Defense budget, America's entire drone program constitutes only about 1% of the entire annual military budget (drones.procon.com).” That is an extremely low number compared to the astounding fact that the Iraq war is going cost the U.S. at least 4.4 trillion dollars at this point (watson.brown.edu). By using drones maximum productivity is being achieved at a very low expense. On top of this drones are eliminating many dangerous members of terrorist groups and are thus proving themselves further to be accurate and efficient. “New American estimates that 1,967-3,236 militants were killed in Pakistan and Yemen, meaning that the overwhelming majority were intended targets (The Washington Post).” Terrorist groups are being weakened greatly by these attacks. With their leaders gone they are left in disarray for a period of time which gives the U.S. time to go in and eliminate more of their power. The effects of these drone attacks are only positive for America as they are accurate, efficient and they are able to get rid of threats to American lives. Drones are an amazingly efficient alternative to regular warfare as they can do exactly what soldiers do for cheaper, with less of a

Critics use the subject of civilian casualties as an argument both for and against the use of drones. From a purely statistical analysis and perspective, the use of drones might be the safest and most precise way to strike