Drone Strikes Argumentative Essay
Did you know in a five-month period between January 2012 and February 2013 there were multiple drone strike bombings? However, 90% of the people killed are not intentional targets. Yes, believe it or not, within a 5 month period only 10% of the targets are killed, while civilians and hopeless families had to suffer from the U.S. actions (Friedersdorf, Conor). While unmanned aircraft or drones are killing and traumatizing civilians, many believe these actions are copacetic as they make the United States impervious. Conversely, many believe these drone strikes are impeccable to prevent our complications, instead we truly are fabricating a more variety of dilemmas to the opposing countries and the United States. Presently, one of the argumentation for drones are its cause and effect, and one being how many civilians actually end up becoming terrorists after an attack (Drones-procon.org). Jeremy Scahill, an author, states, “ The vast majority of militants operating in Yemen today is "people who are aggrieved by attacks on their homes that forced them to go out and fight". As can be seen, our drone intrusions are destroying people's homes and families, that their hatred towards the U.S. is completely justifiable. Ordinarily speaking the United States are killing fewer terrorists than they are fabricating, and only producing motivation for multiple bombings as well as killings in response
…show more content…
to the U.S. In addition, drones and the U.S. are causing havoc against targets that display no true threats. Reuters announces, “the 500 "militants" the CIA believed it had killed with drones between 2008 and 2010, only 14 are "top-tier militant targets," and 25 are"mid-to-high-level organizers". In such instances as these, using soldiers would benefit more as they would save lives, as well as execute their threat preferably of a drone that will harm civilians.
Furthermore, the capitalization of drones is not only affecting the opposing countries, whereas the world. Notwithstanding, it may seem like a stretch to exclaim that drones can disrupt other countries, a lecture by Daniel Suarez proves it. Daniel Suarez discloses information that informs us that the Pentagon, as well as other organizations, are applying individual cameras on drones as they roam mass amount of land around the world (Suarez, Daniel). That is about thousands of footage no human could analyze meaning drones are identifying interests, and decision making will recess on drones. Not bad, right? Well, there have been GPS spoofing cases whereas in 2011 a drone crashing incident took place. Subsequently, if the drone violates the wrong country, they may perceive it as an anonymous attack. An anonymous attack will compose anonymous lethal weapons and lethal attacks (Suarez, Daniel). In summary, Daniels lecture describes overall how too much pressure is allocated on drones, in which they can be hacked where a manned aircraft cannot.
All things considered, there is no denying that drones are at least displaying positive results. Accordingly, drones are saving the U.S. military annual budget by only using 1%, which is 5 billion, of their budget comparing to a 9.7 million on combat on the ground (Drones-procon.org). No contradiction here, the stats does not lie! 4 million is saved and saving lives. In addition to this, it allows the United States to have equity with various countries in terms of technology so they do not dwindle behind and become victims themselves of mass destruction (Drones-procon.org). Consequently, the benefits are really marvelous, however, with the multiple disadvantages, it balances each other out. What makes it that the money saved won’t be used for the same causes, which is fighting terrorists that they U.S. may have constructed. The money used would most likely be equivalent if soldiers did combat on the ground. As well as not declining with technology, Daniel Suarez had a perception of fabricating a treaty for drones. This treaty will be named the “International Treaty Robotic Arms Control”, ITRAC, and he believes that if there is a treaty for biological and nuclear weapons, this should be done as well as they are just as deadly (Suarez, Daniel). Moreover, these leverages may not really be as beneficial as they seem. Nevertheless, given these lethal and worry some points the questions stands?
Are drones worth using for military comprehension? Because of the fact that the United States are actually killing innocent civilians and composing terrorists in order to kill low-value threats (Drones-procon.org) For the most components, the benefits of these drones are not really benefiting such as using the money saved for the same use and eventually being associated with a potential war involving drones. So the answer is no, drones are only causing more havoc than they are helping and should not be
valued.
to the U.S. In addition, drones and the U.S. are causing havoc against targets that display no true threats. Reuters announces, “the 500 "militants" the CIA believed it had killed with drones between 2008 and 2010, only 14 are "top-tier militant targets," and 25 are"mid-to-high-level organizers". In such instances as these, using soldiers would benefit more as they would save lives, as well as execute their threat preferably of a drone that will harm civilians.
Furthermore, the capitalization of drones is not only affecting the opposing countries, whereas the world. Notwithstanding, it may seem like a stretch to exclaim that drones can disrupt other countries, a lecture by Daniel Suarez proves it. Daniel Suarez discloses information that informs us that the Pentagon, as well as other organizations, are applying individual cameras on drones as they roam mass amount of land around the world (Suarez, Daniel). That is about thousands of footage no human could analyze meaning drones are identifying interests, and decision making will recess on drones. Not bad, right? Well, there have been GPS spoofing cases whereas in 2011 a drone crashing incident took place. Subsequently, if the drone violates the wrong country, they may perceive it as an anonymous attack. An anonymous attack will compose anonymous lethal weapons and lethal attacks (Suarez, Daniel). In summary, Daniels lecture describes overall how too much pressure is allocated on drones, in which they can be hacked where a manned aircraft cannot.
All things considered, there is no denying that drones are at least displaying positive results. Accordingly, drones are saving the U.S. military annual budget by only using 1%, which is 5 billion, of their budget comparing to a 9.7 million on combat on the ground (Drones-procon.org). No contradiction here, the stats does not lie! 4 million is saved and saving lives. In addition to this, it allows the United States to have equity with various countries in terms of technology so they do not dwindle behind and become victims themselves of mass destruction (Drones-procon.org). Consequently, the benefits are really marvelous, however, with the multiple disadvantages, it balances each other out. What makes it that the money saved won’t be used for the same causes, which is fighting terrorists that they U.S. may have constructed. The money used would most likely be equivalent if soldiers did combat on the ground. As well as not declining with technology, Daniel Suarez had a perception of fabricating a treaty for drones. This treaty will be named the “International Treaty Robotic Arms Control”, ITRAC, and he believes that if there is a treaty for biological and nuclear weapons, this should be done as well as they are just as deadly (Suarez, Daniel). Moreover, these leverages may not really be as beneficial as they seem. Nevertheless, given these lethal and worry some points the questions stands?
Are drones worth using for military comprehension? Because of the fact that the United States are actually killing innocent civilians and composing terrorists in order to kill low-value threats (Drones-procon.org) For the most components, the benefits of these drones are not really benefiting such as using the money saved for the same use and eventually being associated with a potential war involving drones. So the answer is no, drones are only causing more havoc than they are helping and should not be
valued.