Moral Dangers Of Drone Warfare

Byman’s tone in this article can be described as defensive. In his argument, Byman attempts to refute the arguments of many Americans that maintain that drones should be eliminated. This is demonstrated in Byman’s response to public criticism that using drones creates more terrorists. He states, “critics...

In President Obama’s speech on drone policy, given on May 23, 2013 in Washington D.C., he asserts, “dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers and operatives have been taken off the battlefield... Simply put, those [drone} strikes have saved lives.” Many American’s support this view. According to a July 18, 2013 Pew Research survey, 61% of Americans supported drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia (Drake). However, this belief that drone strikes make the United States safer by decimating terrorist networks around the world is widely contested. An opposing viewpoint is that these strikes create more terrorist than they kill. There is a common misperception that drones are precise, killing only the target and entourage. According to a meta-study of drone strikes, between 8 to 17% of all people killed are civilians (Sing). People who see their loved ones injured or killed in drone

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).

Strikes conducted by remotely piloted aircraft may undermine counterterrorism efforts or enhance them depending on the nature of the violence, the precision with which it is applied, or the intentionality attributed to it. (Kalyvas, 2006; Downes, 2007; Kocher et al., 2011) . Existing research has studied the effects of coercive airpower, (Pape, 1996; Horowitz and Reiter, 2001) , targeted killings (Jaeger, 2009; Jordan, 2009; Johnston, 2012; Price, 2012) and civilian victimization (Kalyvas, 2006; Lyall, 2009; Condra and Shapiro, 2012), but social scientists have conducted little empirical analysis of the effects of drone strikes.

People look to the future; people want to see a better way of life with new technology and other advancements. War is always going to be part of the future. The U.S. Military has come up with a new weapon that would help save lives of soldiers and civilians, it is known as drones. A drone is an unmanned aircraft that can be controlled from a safe environment. Drones were first used to provide high quality surveillance on areas suspected of terrorism. The drones could do this because they are able to fly and hover over their targets for hours while transmitting information to the people on the ground. Drones accompany soldiers in war zones to provide them with important information they need to do a better job. The

Drone warfare is a relatively new approach military leaders are using to eliminate people who have been deemed “threats”. This new approach of warfare allows for the development of a new version of ethics. This approach develops the notion that allows for the throwing out of what is right and what is wrong, and dictates that cost is more important. By this it assumes that the killing of a potential terrorist is more important than the lives of the innocent. The consequentialist concept and the ethics of duty give two approaches of how ethics view this new approach of warfare. The similarities and difference promote a version of ethics that can be viewed as the more modern approach. The relations of these two concepts determine the overall

A man walks into a government facility, screams, “This is your fault!”, before aggressively shooting at them. Some effects of drones in warfare are the creation of terrorists, trauma, insecurity, and murder of innocent civilians. Drones have many uses, in warfare and common life, but almost always there are consequences, therefore, drones should not be used in warfare. By defining the necessity to understand the effects that make drones dangerous, by refuting counterarguments of the safetyness and importance of drones, and by presenting documented evidence, and expert opinions, the reader will be persuaded to be against the use of drones in warfare.

A large debate has overtaken some of the legal landscape as to whether or not targeted killings are actually legal under the existing international law. Mainly this is a reflecting of the broad geographical scope of the war on terror. One of the biggest legal arguments is the legal status of the targets and if the air strikes can be considered discriminate, proportionate and necessary as stated in the rules of war. Debates about the legitimacy of targeted killings continue to rage. It is precisely this union on the importance of international law that peaks the interest of many so much. One of the main points of argument in the current debate about drones is whether or not the United States is actually at war with those it is targeting. We know that we are at war with terror, but we have never declared war on ISIS. Although this may seem like a relatively trivial concern, it has significant implications for deciding the legality of individual operations. After all, it is the presence or absence of conflict that ultimately decides what body of law is applicable. Within the confines of armed conflict, for example, it is generally expected that the lex specialis of war, which combines elements of both International Humanitarian Law and human rights law, applies (Gregory, T., 2015). The U.S. government has been very clear that it considers itself to be at war with those it is

Imagine a world where peace is real and not a dream, well for Mohammed, a teenager that lost his brother and his father by an American drone. Mohammed’s brother and father were herding camels until a drone strike hit them, ending their lives. Unfortunately, the tragic news doesn’t end with Mohammed’s dead family (Greenwald). Using drones to keep public safety is important and saving soldiers’ lives as well. Even though it saves soldier’s lives, it is a danger to the public because it violates international law and it has killed innocent lives.

Drones have many advantages over manned aircraft. They can be flown up to a maximum of 30 hours before they have to land for the regular maintenance and energy fill. (Koh, Point: Drones Can Be Used To Perform Dull, Dirty, Or Dangerous Functions More Effectively, Safely, Humanely, and Cheaply Than Manned Aircraft) Drones also are an easy way of tracking highly dangerous militants in remote areas and over rugged terrain without putting pilots in danger of being shot down. By being able to track these people through the air also makes it so ground forces don’t have to go into hostile environments to try and gather much needed

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 use of drone strikes makes people wonder if it is necessary and proportional to the threat. The principle of proportionality prohibits excessive force, taking consideration of both civilian and militant casualties of war. Even if a target is considered lawful under the IHL, the principle of proportionality still applies and any form of attack that is deemed to violate the principle of proportionality is subject to prohibition of the attack itself. The IHL have banned many weapons after WWII for causing more harm than necessary, such as explosive projectiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and cluster munitions. And this is only to name a few that have been banned by treaties like the Declaration of Saint Petersburg (1868), Geneva Protocol (1925), Convention on the Prohibition of Biological Weapons (1972), Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (1993), and Convention on Cluster Munitions (2008) to name a few. In the case of Drone warfare, drones itself are not dangerous or illegal, but the way they are being used by the US government raises many issues since civilians are becoming of target whether by accident or on purpose. Verification of the events in Pakistan confirms that militants are not defined strictly to terrorists, but any civilian can be classified as “militants” if they are dressed the same, or even in the same vicinity. Using signal

Drones minimize the need for ground soldiers, and airplane pilots. Sending a ground crew can raise the danger of a firefight, and sending in an aircraft pulls the risk of anti-aircraft missiles. Drones, of course, are still subject to these defense mechanisms, but if there’s no one acting as a live pilot, there is no way for it to be any danger for our military. Other threats eliminated in the utilization of drones include weather, environmental conditions, land mines, and virtually anything that could hinder or harm soldiers. Drones negate the danger of all of these, given the fact that they are inanimate objects. To risk a simple piece of machinery is far preferable over risking a human

War is and has always been the worst option for resolving any kind of conflict. But until recent years wars always had a personal element in them. The wars required actual boots on the ground which meant that there would be many casualties on both sides. However, this changed with the introduction of drone technology because it enabled one nation to remotely control their weapons and thus not risk their lives in the war. Nations are now able to fight their wars remotely. Proponents of using military drones argue for the targeted use of drones to kill highly dangerous terrorists. Opponents claim that the drone attacks kill too many innocent civilians to justify them.

Surprisingly, some political scientists, moral philosophers, and weapons specialists conclude the use of unmanned, armed aircrafts offer moral advantages over almost any other tool of warfare (Dozier, 2013). “I had ethical doubts and concerns when I started looking into this,” stated Bradley J. Strawser, a former Air Force officer and an assistant professor of philosophy at the Naval Postgraduate School (Eickenberg, 2013). Strawser concluded, after researching a concentrated study of remotely piloted vehicles, that using drones to go after terrorists is not only ethically acceptable, but may also be ethically necessary. This is due to the drones abilities to efficiently identify enemy combatants and strike with absolute precision (Eickenberg, 2013). Strawser questioned, “You have to start by asking, as for any military action, is the cause just” (Eickenberg, 2013)? Therefore, Strawser went on to further back up his opinion by stating, “all the evidence we have so far suggests that drones are better at both identifying the terrorist and avoiding collateral damage than anything else we have” (Eickenberg, 2013). From the standpoint of a military professional who has explored both the negative and positive aspects embodying drones, the positives simply outweigh the negatives.