Manning the flight controls, you guide the aircraft into hostile airspace over your predestined target. You pull the trigger and launch an explosive projectile into a building housing suspected terrorist affiliates, annihilating it into a pile of rubble. Seconds later, your vehicle is struck by an anti-aircraft missile and crashes violently into the ground. You get up and leisurely stroll away from the scene without a single scratch. The entire time, you were staring at a computer screen while remotely flying an unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone. No physical harm has befallen you or any other American soldier. The American government often uses deadly force through UAVs to eliminate high-priority targets throughout the world. By flying drones
…show more content…
However, they conducted the assaults in a manner that had little concern for collateral damage. The argument against cheap drone strikes is focused on the intended targets. Many critics claim that the initial attacks are not concentrated on single suspected individuals. Instead, the aerial attacks performed are “signature strikes,” (Crawford 3). Authorities target vehicles, camps, or buildings in the hope that the wanted suspect is inside (3). This method is opposed to “personality strikes” which specifically target identified alleged high-value militants (Dalziel 6). Signature strikes have become a staple of President Obama’s counterterrorism campaign. Since his inauguration in 2009, Obama has ordered over 330 attacks in Pakistan alone, the majority of which were signature strikes (Shaw 212). According to US military policy, any persons who are of military age and in the immediate vicinity of a known insurgent are assumed to be associated even without their confirmed identities. Therefore, the person is essentially guilty until proven innocent. The main argument is that the drone strikes therefore cannot be determined as ethically sound. Due to the American use of signature strikes, there is always a significant possibility that a number of victims were noncombatants. In addition, there are times that the United …show more content…
However, the evidence shows that the benefits are not enough to justify the consequences. The United States government does not seek the best strategy of protecting foreign civilians. Instead, they attack open areas without knowing who is a legitimate target and who is not. They also have a tendency to organize an assault without first confirming that the target they are firing upon is in fact affiliated with a terrorist movement. The critics believe that the American use of drones as a means of intimidation or dissuasion is wrong. Drones should only be used when a military based purpose has first been established. The adverse effects of drones do not outweigh the beneficial
However, they conducted the assaults in a manner that had little concern for collateral damage. The argument against cheap drone strikes is focused on the intended targets. Many critics claim that the initial attacks are not concentrated on single suspected individuals. Instead, the aerial attacks performed are “signature strikes,” (Crawford 3). Authorities target vehicles, camps, or buildings in the hope that the wanted suspect is inside (3). This method is opposed to “personality strikes” which specifically target identified alleged high-value militants (Dalziel 6). Signature strikes have become a staple of President Obama’s counterterrorism campaign. Since his inauguration in 2009, Obama has ordered over 330 attacks in Pakistan alone, the majority of which were signature strikes (Shaw 212). According to US military policy, any persons who are of military age and in the immediate vicinity of a known insurgent are assumed to be associated even without their confirmed identities. Therefore, the person is essentially guilty until proven innocent. The main argument is that the drone strikes therefore cannot be determined as ethically sound. Due to the American use of signature strikes, there is always a significant possibility that a number of victims were noncombatants. In addition, there are times that the United …show more content…
However, the evidence shows that the benefits are not enough to justify the consequences. The United States government does not seek the best strategy of protecting foreign civilians. Instead, they attack open areas without knowing who is a legitimate target and who is not. They also have a tendency to organize an assault without first confirming that the target they are firing upon is in fact affiliated with a terrorist movement. The critics believe that the American use of drones as a means of intimidation or dissuasion is wrong. Drones should only be used when a military based purpose has first been established. The adverse effects of drones do not outweigh the beneficial