Daniel Byman said in his article that Obama plans to reduce drone usage, but it will still be his weapon of choice with signing for over four hundred drone strikes. These drone strikes have terminated over fifty senior leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban, and around 3,300 members total. They have done more than ending the lives of terrorists. The strikes have also halted communication and interrupt terrorists from recruiting. The drone strikes are actually working in ceasing terrorism efforts, therefore they are completing their purpose. When ‘Hap’ Arnold talked about drones for the first time he said “…fought by airplanes with no men in them at all.” Drones can help do the work that some military raids are not capable of handling and not putting American soldiers at risk. Therefore, since the drone strikes are doing what they are made for then there is no problem in using them for the greater …show more content…
Although, in my opinion, the pros outweigh the cons. While some people take extreme measures to the drone strikes, the United States is able to decrease terrorism in foreign countries by using the drones. Drones and RPA’s have already taken out the senior leaders creating terrorist acts and stopped communication in some cases. While the use of drones is a great idea, there are rules that should be followed up with it. While the way that drones are used is beneficial to the U.S., it might be used against the U.S. it other ways. Creating an international law for drone and RPA usage would eliminate the fear of strikes being used in an ill manner. Creating such laws would enforce a system that encourages drones and RPA’s in a sense that any government can use