The Pros And Cons Of Drone Killings

According to Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, authors of “Anti-Drone Movement Grows: Ethics, Legality and Effectiveness of Drone Killings Doubted”, the use of drones by the U.S. military causes more trouble than what they are worth. Additionally, Zeese and Flowers reiterate their points by detailing attacks which “create situations in which violence begets violence”. However, as drones do collateral damage to objects around an established target, they are able to eliminate a large threat without endangering too many civilian and soldier lives. In fact, drones cause less damage to surrounding areas, use less resources, and are able to stay on for longer periods of times than soldiers. Hence this response paper challenges the viewpoints of Zeese
They effectively state “The drone strikes are counterproductive because they gave rise to a desire, particularly among young men, to seek revenge for the drone strikes, thus radicalizing a new generation”. This statement shows how these drone attacks by the U.S. bring about a worse kind effect than any other, a rise in hatred towards the U.S. in the future leaders of Pakistan. Even if the hate from future generations establishes itself, the U.S. is doing what it believes is the best way to protect its people now and has stated plans to help Pakistan in the future in hope of reconciling the damages they are causing now. As Zeese and Flowers continue to describe the destruction that drones cause, eventually drones will be used more and more, causing their effectiveness to increase and eventually cause less destruction. Though the people of Pakistan would rather have less damage now, the damage caused by drones is very little in comparison to ground troops. In recent reports, many causalities and confrontations were caused by the U.S. troops and the many firefights with terrorists that pop out during their patrols. The drones on the other hand, cause less confrontation and can lead into less overall deaths in both civilians and troops