The proposition side’s first contention is that it provides research for militants and scientists. When countries are going to attack a area, they need to know what the area is like and that is what exactly one of the good uses a drone has without risking a life. According to the Brookings Institution, “all countries excluding third have 13% higher success right when studying the target zone in terms of killing the terrorists using drones.” When we success rate goes up then the terrorists will decrease the chance of terrorist attacks in that country. Also, this is generally for militants to learn about places in general without risking lives in danger places. Drones not only allow versatility in mapping terrain, they also allow us to get
…show more content…
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. In comparison, the military's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program alone cost the United States $9.7 billion in fiscal year 2012. US manned military attack aircraft cost anywhere from $18,000 to $169,000 per hour to operate - six to 42 times more than attack drones. Al Qaeda spent roughly half a million dollars to plan and execute the attacks on the United States on Sep. 11, 2001. In response, the United States spent roughly $2.2 trillion on funding manned air and ground wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and on homeland security costs in the following decade - over $4 million for every dollar al Qaeda spent,” according to a CNN article. You can clearly see that drones are much cheaper than manually sending troops in. Food, water, salaries for the military men, weapons, gear, transportation, and etcetera all account for the cost of troops. The drones only need to use money for the drones themselves which is much less than troops. According to the American Security Project, unclassified reports show that the MQ-9 Reaper drone used for attacks in Pakistan has a single unit cost of US $6.48 million and an operational cost of close to US $3 million. In contrast, each US soldier deployed in Afghanistan in 2012 cost the government US $2.1 million. It is clear that it is a win-win situation for drones. Drones save money and lives. How? Military troops cost more and drones don’t put any soldiers in life-threatening
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. In comparison, the military's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program alone cost the United States $9.7 billion in fiscal year 2012. US manned military attack aircraft cost anywhere from $18,000 to $169,000 per hour to operate - six to 42 times more than attack drones. Al Qaeda spent roughly half a million dollars to plan and execute the attacks on the United States on Sep. 11, 2001. In response, the United States spent roughly $2.2 trillion on funding manned air and ground wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and on homeland security costs in the following decade - over $4 million for every dollar al Qaeda spent,” according to a CNN article. You can clearly see that drones are much cheaper than manually sending troops in. Food, water, salaries for the military men, weapons, gear, transportation, and etcetera all account for the cost of troops. The drones only need to use money for the drones themselves which is much less than troops. According to the American Security Project, unclassified reports show that the MQ-9 Reaper drone used for attacks in Pakistan has a single unit cost of US $6.48 million and an operational cost of close to US $3 million. In contrast, each US soldier deployed in Afghanistan in 2012 cost the government US $2.1 million. It is clear that it is a win-win situation for drones. Drones save money and lives. How? Military troops cost more and drones don’t put any soldiers in life-threatening