Drones Benefiting the Military?
Would drones simplify our lives? Drones are becoming a new part of our lives, but there are controversial thoughts about them. Like many other things, drones have negative and positive aspects involving them. One controversial topic is whether drones should be used in the military. Looking at the different sides of what people think, allows us to see the pros and cons about them. Drones have many benefits if they are used in the military and they help people from risking their lives. In my perspective drones should be used in the military. 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. Drones can be controlled from the base, which means that soldiers don’t have to risk their lives by going to the battling field and risking their lives. Using drones in the military would also save a lot of money.
…show more content…
Drones are meant to be used to help out, but they can also cause even more problems, like the increase in terrorism. Like ProCons.org explains, terrorism has increased because drones kill people’s loved ones, which causes them to want revenge from their loved one’s parting. Not only can they kill terrorists and adversaries, but they can also kill innocent people that are not involved in the situation. “Classified documents leaked in Oct. 2015 showed that in one five-month period of drone strikes in Afghanistan, as many as 90 percent of those killed were not the intended targets…” (Drones). From all the drone attacks, people are traumatized because they don’t know when the next attack will be.
Evaluation of “Remote Weaponry: The Ethical Implication” by Suzy Killmister Throughout time warfare has evolved both strategically and in their mechanics. Armed forces are no longer fighting with swords or lined up in trenches as commonly as they used to. It is only natural for something that is made to protect civilizations to evolve as strategists are introduced to new technologies. From swords to muskets and automatic rifles, the conversation now takes the “man to man” contact out of the equation.
How WW1 weapons changed the world of warfare “European nations began World War I with a glamorous vision of war, only to be psychologically shattered by the realities of the trenches. The experience changed the way people referred to the glamour of battle; they treated it no longer as a positive quality but as a dangerous illusion,” Virginia Postrel. WW1 was the first war to truly tear away from the fantasy of battle, and replaced it with the brutal reality of widespread death. Weapons, and upgrades to existing weapons, introduced in WW1 forever changed modern warfare. World War 1 introduced and upgraded many staples of modern anti personal weapons.
US NEWS informs us, “Drones in Seattle and Miami are equipped with video cameras capable of taking daytime and nighttime video, as are drones used by the Texas Department of Public Safety.” In 1989 Supreme Court decision ruled that police may use helicopters to peer into semiprivate areas including the backyard of a house without first obtaining a warrant. The Congressional Research Service furthermore states “The legal issues discussed in this report will likely remain unresolved until the civilian use of drones becomes more widespread”. The fourth amendment prohibits any search and seizures without a warrant.
On the other hand, it would cost the government ~1.5 trillion
Full range of advanced surveillance and intelligence (i.e. high powered zoom lens, night vision, see-through technology ‘dust, clouds, buildings and foliage’, video analytics and vise distribution. Becoming increasingly more affordable, making the probability of mass production likely. Longer flight time capabilities for the smaller WASP and RAVEN drone models. Decreased maintenance time and man-power needs. CONS: Supreme Court ruling that the 4th Amendment “ Does not categorically prohibit the government from carrying out warrantless, aerial surveillance of private property”.
safer by decimating terrorist networks across the world. Drones kill fewer civilians, as a percentage of total fatalities, than any other military weapon. Drone strikes are legal under international law. These are all points that get one thinking that drones are okay, but little do they know that there are thousands of innocent lives being killed by strikes that weren’t even supposed to be attacking them. The voters for using drones don’t fully know what’s on the other side of using them, if we use them this will trigger many people, victims of ones who got hit on accident and more.
Drones kill fewer civilians than any other military weapon but drone strikes target individuals who may not be terrorists or enemy combatants and drone strikes mostly kill low-value targets who are not significant threats to US safety and security. Even with the copious amounts of surveillance conducted on these individuals that are possibly terrotists, the drone attacks on them do not seem justified because of the lack of physical evidence that these individuals were a threat to the United states or to any country. Although drone strikes are legal in the United States and are subject to a strict review process and congressional oversight, drone strikes violate international law. Massive surveillance industrial complex post 9/11, has had many negative and positive effects through out the past decade. The meaning of our laws and policies have not been able to keep pace with the advances in technology or the development of surveillance as a whole.
It is not hard to see where Obama stands since the drones are unmanned, which means less American casualties. Not to mention, the drones’ accuracy leaves nothing to be desired. However, the drones are still not perfect. Their targeting depends on the intelligence available to the pilot, and it is impossible to fully avoid civilian casualties. As a result, civilians being killed means a raise in contempt for the United States.
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.
Uses of drones is one of the biggest reasons of new technology affecting the 4th amendment. Uses of drones is allowing that person to fly this piece of technology and see what somebody is doing. This is invading privacy, you're basically searching someone by watching them and seeing what's going on, and you have no warrant to do so. Drones need to be modified I believe. The next reason is the Apple and FBI disputes.
We can see with bare eyes that most drones are being used in film industries to take higher and impossible shots in films that they make. Since we are already in an era where technology developed fast, it has recently become famous for their dangerous activities around the world. In the Europe, people are aware of the
Ben carson has neither said a statement for or against the use of personal drones, he has however suggested with a Donald Trump ideology, that drones should be used to patrol the borders and eradicate caves where smugglers hide immigrants. This would not directly involve personal drones but the companies hired to create these drones will likely come from a company already present in the drone market. Therefore, personal drones companies will also carry offensive drones. This may distort the recreational use of drones by labeling them as weapons.
Everything has its both sides and using drones is not an exception. Furthermore, if there is an advantage, there must be a problems following it. To get to the point, the drones can be useful to people. For example, they can protect people, deliver products or food easily and quickly, substitute people and reduce labor costs, rescue people from the place which we can’t reach, and they also can distribute vaccines to people. On the other hand, drones can be harmful to people.
Drones can be used for finding a lost child in the park or hikers in the mountain. Drone technology is a fast growing industry that can help us many ways to help to find lost people, watch our borders and go places that are too dangerous for us to go. Drones can be used for many nonviolent and harmless purposes. After all, it’s free thinking machine that under human
Still, in some quarters, drones are feared. The negative vibes are coming from people who think of drones that hover and collect information or data as being harbingers of "Big Brother. " They fear an infringement of the privacy rights of Americans.