ICRC’s president also provided an answer to the question about who is accountable for the civilians’ deaths using drone strike. He said, “drone operators and their chain of command are accountable for what happens.” Some people might disagree with Maurer at this point. The operators might or might not make decisions on their own whether to strike or not. What if the order for a drone strike comes from the President so the operator had no choice but to press the button to fire a missile? What if the operator did not want to fire because he or she disagreed about the identity of a target?
The operation of a drone is done remotely thus creating a distance between the operator and the target. This raises the question of the drone operator as a legal combatant. The operators of drones hardly fit the criteria for a combatant under IHL and may be too disconnected from the target in terms of distance and time that it raises the question of his legitimacy as a combatant (Sterio 2012). International humanitarian law seeks to limit the means of warfare, including by limiting certain technologies through treaties. It addresses itself to the specific nature of what drones and other military technology may be permitted to do in the military theatre.
Battery life on a drone can last the pilot anywhere from two to four hours (Calhoun). However, battery power and ability to stay connected with pilot are some of the same reasons why some people are against the use of drones in the military. Even though there are reasons opposing their use, the military will not stop drones from sweeping the battlefield. One positive effect of the use of drones in the military is the efficiency of the drone in combat. UAVs are able to access areas and see the battlefield in multiple perspectives in ways the average foot soldiers cannot.
There is a high percentage of civilian casualties involved in the use of drones. While this is not a premium circumstance, sometimes there are no ways around such casualties. It truly is a shame and is unavoidable in many cases. When troops are boots on the ground to combat terrorism they will often suffer casualties and also cause civilian casualties within these compounds. Ergo, the drones are ultimately avoiding more causalities than necessary.
It was created by Dr. Richard Jordan Gatling in hopes that the weapon would be so destructive that it would end the Civil War quickly. His plan did not work and the war carried on. Another weapon that was ineffective was the “torpedo” or landmines. These were used by the Confederacy to try to delay the Union from advancing. It did some damage but overall wasn’t a major weapon that would turn the war in their favor.
It is unlikely that aliens caused the power outage because if they did, the people would have seen them. The chances of a neighbor shooting another neighbor are very slim, because charlie should have been able to see Pete Van Horn in the dark from a little distance. It’s not possible for plot to be realistic because Les Goodman’s car started on its own in the 1950s, they blamed the power outage on aliens, and charlie shooting Pete Van Horn is very slim. He could not start the car on his own, they would have had to see the aliens, and they would not shoot each other. In conclusion, the plot is unrealistic and this story is a sci-fi story, but I recommend you read it or watch it.
In the first novel The Glass Castle, the father, Rex Walls is the one who creates the drama in his family. He is a negative influence for the children and his actions are unacceptable and because of his action are what creates the drama. For exam-ple at one point in the novel Rex tries to run Rose over with his car while she is pregnant and his kids witness everything, Jeanette states, “We shot forward toward Mom, who screamed and jumped out of the way. Dad turned around and went for her again” (Walls 43). Since Rex is not being sensible with the situation, and is acting poorly it creates a dysfunction in the family be-cause everyone is constantly fighting.
Once the family moves, the mother soon finds out that they live near a concentration camp. When she finds out, fights between her and her husband (also Bruno’s dad) which distances them from each other. Not only does it weaken their marriage, but they also do it in front of Bruno, which, as a kid would not be good because at a young age like that, they are extremely highly influenced by their parents and the people around them. Bruno continues to become more and more curious about what he refers to it as “the farm,” but is really a concentration camp and he continues to go and visit Schmuel from the other side of the chain-link. Lastly, the teacher that comes to teach Bruno and his sister exclusively seems to be extremely interested in WWII, which, as previously stated, can influence bruno, which made him more curious, which ultimately led to the death of both Bruno and Schmuel.
In comparison with the TED talk by Singer, he is able to exhibit the use of advanced technology in combat, as much as it’s safe in that human soldier’s won’t get hurt or die in the battle, since they will be operating in a closed safe room that are miles away from the battle, they go against Aquinas requirements. Peace is never the last resort as countries just start war by sending drones to bomb other countries, without legitimate authority and a just case. Like for example the terrorist group ISIS who kill even the innocent and result to a lot of civilian casualties which has not been proportional. Most of their intentions are wrong and not appropriate, as some are self, economic or political driven and not for the benefit of the common just cause. Thus technology has both advantages and disadvantages, but humans are just seen developing combat advanced technologies with the intentions of hurting and harming our fellow human
Before the arrival of our protagonist's life is dull and hope is dismal. For example, daily medications given by Nurse Ratched or “You eat when we say you eat, you shit when we say you shit, and you piss when we say you piss.”[Hadley, The Shawshank Redemption]. The protagonists seek to change this life and inspire those around them to do the same. For example, in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” McMurphy is shocked by most of his fellow inmates not wanting to leave after they’ve been conditioned to believe they are not fit to be a part of society “...you bitch for weeks on end about how you can’t stand this place, can’t stand the nurse or anything about her...you’re not exactly the everyday man on the street, but you’re not nuts.” [McMurphy, pg. 195].
Because Friedersdorf does not take the time to define what a drone is or describe what a drone does, it is implied that he assumes his audience is educated with basic knowledge about drones and the controversy around them. Friedersdorf calls for citizens to take a stand when he urges the audience to, “call for [the government 's abuse of drones] to stop” and that “it is [the audience’s] responsibility to call for a moratorium on drone strikes,” by doing so, he is assigning a duty to the audience to mobilize to create change in a circumstance that he views as wrong (The
The DB Cooper is the only successful American plane hijacking in history. In my presentation, I will discuss how if committed today, he could not get away with the crime. To truly understand the points I will be making, I need to research the actual investigation, 9/11, and the effects on the airline industry. This claim provides me with enough to talk about because I will describe the event for background ,then go into depth about airport security, the unrest in the airline industry during this time period and the forensic technology that would inhibit the crime for happening. Also, my thesis does not give my presentation away because, unlike earlier versions of this talk, I am not just saying “crimes are bad”; I will talk about the actual
Another great danger of drone warfare is the lack of empathy involved. Because of the cold disconnect, the remoteness of sitting behind a screen and control console, you can be totally disengaged from the act of killing someone on the other side of the planet. In Elisabeth Bumiller’s New York Times article, “A Day Job Waiting for a Kill Shot A World Away”, Keith Shurtleff, US army chaplain and ethics instructor, states that as soldiers are "physically and psychologically removed from the horrors of battle and see the enemy not as humans but as blips on a screen, there is a danger of losing the deterrent to war that its horrors normally provide." In the same article Colonel D. Scott Brenton acknowledged the disconnect of fighting a "telewar with a joystick and a throttle" thousands of miles away from the battlefield, then driving home to have dinner with his family. "I feel no emotional attachment to the enemy," he said.
One theme discussed in the book is the politics associated with drones and drone strikes. Specifically, the authors mention the politics behind the authorization of drone strikes. Drone warfare is conducted and authorized only in the executive branch of the government. Conventionally, whenever the United States decided to engage in warfare abroad, the legislative branch would authorize the conduct of war and declare war against whom ever and what ever the United States wished to fight with. However, drone warfare doesn 't require the authorization from Congress, and can solely conducted by the executive branch.
And what was the end result due to job creation in the military system? Having the military as the main source of creating jobs can become very useless as most nations now a days don 't even go to war mainly because of National Peace Corporations, this causing their troops not being utilized. Robert B. Reich, a professor of public policy at the university of California, Berkeley, asserted that "Having a giant undercover military jobs program is an insane way to keep Americans employed." he again argued against the defence program saying that “a jobs program for building weapons that America doesn 't need is wasteful and a poor use of resources. The government should invest and create jobs in areas where the United States actually needs improvement, such as in education or infrastructure”.