The rising use of technology within warfare has led to many new advancements, including technology such as UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), or more commonly known as drones. These “drones” can carry hundreds of pounds of nuclear grade explosives and deliver them around the world without ever putting a human pilot in danger. The use of this technology to deliver these payloads around the world to designated targets, whether they be terrorists or even people deemed unfit for human life by spy agencies such as the MI6 or the CIA, among others, is why this topic of drones within warfare is debated about time and time again. The issue of the use of drones within warfare is solved by one simple statement, they are going to be used. This statement
…show more content…
However, during the current age of drones, only 21.5 percent of casualties are classified as “non-hostile” (Robert Weiner & Tom Sherman). This reduction in both civilian and accidental deaths is a total shoot down of any argument stating that drones are the reason that civilian deaths are on the rise since the implementation of drones, even though the troops are more of a threat to them than the flying killing machines in the skies. This reason is only supported by the following reason, in which the troop’s lives are at …show more content…
They argue that the use of drones lead to increased deaths of civilian in the afflicted countries that drones are flown in. Kristina Benson states in her article, “"Kill 'em and Sort it Out Later:" Signature Drone Strikes and International Humanitarian Law”, “The first use of armed drones occurred in February of 2002, when a CIA-operated drone spotted a “tall man” around whom others were “acting with reverence… [He] died along with two others, neither of whom were alleged terrorists.” (Benson). This argument against the use of drones is valid, however this is only one specific example, and there are many other articles and essays that prove that this accusation is flawed. Like previously stated, the ratio of non-hostile to hostile deaths in warfare has severely dropped since the initiation of drones due to the fact that drones allow for nitpicking of details 24 hours before the strike and 24 hours after, which allows for the absolute certainty of the target’s identity. Another argument against the use is the cost of the drones themselves, which previously mentioned is actually lower than the cost to deploy troops to the area and maintain a presence there instead of allowing a drone to fly in, deliver the payload, and fly out back to a friendly base. These two arguments against the use of drones provide a good backboard for the support of drones within warfare,
However, during the current age of drones, only 21.5 percent of casualties are classified as “non-hostile” (Robert Weiner & Tom Sherman). This reduction in both civilian and accidental deaths is a total shoot down of any argument stating that drones are the reason that civilian deaths are on the rise since the implementation of drones, even though the troops are more of a threat to them than the flying killing machines in the skies. This reason is only supported by the following reason, in which the troop’s lives are at …show more content…
They argue that the use of drones lead to increased deaths of civilian in the afflicted countries that drones are flown in. Kristina Benson states in her article, “"Kill 'em and Sort it Out Later:" Signature Drone Strikes and International Humanitarian Law”, “The first use of armed drones occurred in February of 2002, when a CIA-operated drone spotted a “tall man” around whom others were “acting with reverence… [He] died along with two others, neither of whom were alleged terrorists.” (Benson). This argument against the use of drones is valid, however this is only one specific example, and there are many other articles and essays that prove that this accusation is flawed. Like previously stated, the ratio of non-hostile to hostile deaths in warfare has severely dropped since the initiation of drones due to the fact that drones allow for nitpicking of details 24 hours before the strike and 24 hours after, which allows for the absolute certainty of the target’s identity. Another argument against the use is the cost of the drones themselves, which previously mentioned is actually lower than the cost to deploy troops to the area and maintain a presence there instead of allowing a drone to fly in, deliver the payload, and fly out back to a friendly base. These two arguments against the use of drones provide a good backboard for the support of drones within warfare,