People feel that their privacy has greatly interfered with when the aircrafts start to move above the sky and collecting data and then share the same data with the public. Additionally, the drones can develop a mechanical problem, fall and then injure people. The drones used for military expedition might also have a great challenge when sometimes the drones happened to kill civilians who were innocent on the war zones. However, the federal government and the departments responsible for surveillance and privacy in the United States have been in the front line to give some of the recommendations that would act as a pillar to reduce the challenges that are caused by the drones. Registration of the drones, having strict rules of surveillance, and compensation of those hurt by the drones are among the rules aimed at streamlining the use of
Although there are cons, the pros exceed the negative aspects about them. We use drones for everyday life, so why not use them in the military too? For instance, fewer innocent people are killed because of drones. “The traditional weapons of war - bombs, shells, mines, mortars - cause more unintended (“collateral”) damage to people and property than drones…” (Drones). Not only do they keep civilians from getting hurt, they also help soldiers.
This may seem like a shocking figure yet records show that conventional airstrikes and ground invasions both kill more civilians on average than the drone. “The drone represents a steady advance in precision that has cut zeros off collateral-damage figures”____. So although the drone has not met the miracle expectations that were set for it; it is still the best option
Alterman starts off explaining his view that using the term “war” is a misleading notion which has been erroneously used by leaders. Alterman states, “We like the idea of fighting wars because we think we can win a clear victory. And in our long history of wars against other nations, we 've defeated many of them. But we can 't win a war against a complex phenomenon like poverty, drug use, or terrorism.” (2017). He expands on how terrorists have the advantage of relatively easy access to weapons, and the easy communication, including social media and TV.
Reagan foreign policies moved away from Détente to bargain from a position of power, this led to the buildup of the military and the technological advances in weaponry. Programs like Strategic Defense Initiative rendered the use of IBCM ineffective (in theory), the advances in battlefield weaponry, M1 Abrahams, and Tomahawk cruise missiles, evened the odds against the larger Soviets forces and in some cases gave the United States the advantage. Many people give Reagan credit for bringing about the collapse of the Iron Curtain, however the Soviet Union’s economic policies restricted growth and led to a huge amount of discord among the population. The advantage that Reagan had was the Soviets were struggling in Afghanistan and in 1986 the Chernobyl incident which spread radioactive particles over the Western portions of Russia and Eastern Europe. The estimated cost of Chernobyl is 18 Billion rubles (1986) over 200 million in today’s dollars, and led to the evacuation of over 300,000 people in what history will determine the worst nonmilitary nuclear event to date.
But alas, in 2003, the United States of America (backed the British) invaded Iraqi soil. Victor Hanson of The National Review, discusses how “The invasion of Iraq was a perfect storm predicated on [many] suppositions”, many of which could have been avoided, he says. The two most pushed reasons for the invasion were the war on “terrorism” and the removal of Saddam Hussein (Hanson). Hussein was the seen as the epitome of corruption and therefore had to be removed. Senators from both parties and numerous world leader agreed with this reasoning.
The statement has led many critics to talk about the ultimate surveillance society. - I think we have only seen the beginning of what this can do. Although I feel that the criticism had more space in the media, but the more cost effective it is, the more we will probably see the drones that perform including border surveillance in the United States, says Frida Stranne. Even in the current situation allows the US Supreme Court police use of unarmed drones to scout for instance marijuana plantations or the Border Guard against Mexico. Two years ago, sent an unmanned aircraft in the air over the state of North Dakota to search for cattle
Along with the remorse drone pilots are feeling, they often are put under much stress and it takes its toll on the pilots. Stress is put on drone pilots who are thinking “all right, I’ve got my war face on, and I’m going to the fight, and then driving out of the gate and stopping at Walmart to pick up a carton of milk” (T. 18). The pilots are having a hard time going to work and killing targets and then going home to their families because of the difference in situations. This puts stress on them and the work being classified only adds to it (T. 18). American lives are still put at risk when drone pilots go to their work every day and coming home with the guilt and stress of their work.
This report does not aim to question the morality of assassinations; rather, given that the decision to assassinate an individual has been made, it analyzes the ethical arguments concerning The United State’s use of a drone strike as a means of assassination rather than spending Special Forces. Recently, the US military has increased its use of airstrikes by unmanned aerial vehicles (UVAs) as a means of assassination. This pivot in foreign policy has popularized the ethical debate concerning the effectiveness of ‘drone strikes’ as a means of killing America’s enemies. The use of drone strikes provides the US with the safest, cheapest, and least politically destabilizing method of assassination, though, increased transparency concerning the
Recent technological changes are making war less brutal. For example, when in past to attack the target would have required an invasion with thousands of heavily armed troops, dislocating huge numbers of civilians and destroying valuable property along the way then nowadays drones, driven by distance, will accomplice the attack much easier and less collateral damages (Goldstein, pp 4). And improvements in battlefield medicine have made combat less lethal for participants. In the U.S. Army, the chances of dying from a combat injury fell from 30 percent in World War II to 10 percent in Iraq and Afghanistan (Goldstein, pp 4). In short the changes in warfare has made world more civilised but even civilised people will have conflicts what to