![]() |
1944 Japanese Balloon bomb |
|
Predator Drone
|
Global Hawk drone
|
Not everybody is in favor of using drones without putting privacy rules in place first, specifically the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) states on their website that "Routine aerial surveillance would profoundly change the character of public life in America. Rules must be put in place to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits of this new technology without bringing us closer to a “surveillance society” in which our every move is monitored, tracked, recorded, and scrutinized by the government."
In New York Times post published on 11/23/2013 makes note that "Pakistani politicians denounce the attacks as a violation of the country’s sovereignty. Pakistani officials have regularly condemned the strikes in public while, in the past, endorsing them in private. But increasingly the drone campaign has strained relations between Pakistan and the United States."
On the war front "Amnesty International investigators conducted on-the-ground research into nine of the 45 drone strikes they reviewed. They found that in some cases, innocent civilians were killed in the strikes. In one circumstance, 18 workers were killed by multiple missiles in North Waziristan as they were settling into an evening meal. In another, a 68-year-old grandmother was killed by a Hellfire missile as she harvested vegetables from her family's farm." Civilian casualties are this sort are a sad fact of war nonetheless they are heart breaking and should not occur.
The genie is out of the bottle and we can't put the technology back in a safe place. The truth is that the usage of drones will expand because it does provide a financial benefit in reducing the cost of wars. It provides necessary surveillance to keep citizens safe and assist in solving crimes.
Wars are inevitable, messy in all sorts of ways, from the enormous loss of life to equipment and capital. However, with the use of drones we can for the first time in history conduct wars that minimize the loss of life. Avery Plaw a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts reported that in "conventional military conflicts over the last two decades, he found that estimates of civilian deaths ranged from about 33 percent to more than 80 percent of all deaths." that is far greater than the 3% found in drone strikes. According to Bradley J. Strawser "using them to go after terrorists not only was ethically permissible but also might be ethically obligatory, because of their advantages in identifying targets and striking with precision"
In future wars we will not lose as many civilians as the 100,000+ of people we've lost in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Wars will be targeted with minimal amount of troops on the ground. We'll have a fleet of automated drones that can search out and eliminate our enemies without providing them targets to harm as we won't have massive bases in their vicinity. Yes other countries will also have drones and there is an arms race but the price of saving lives and minimizing unnecessary deaths is worth it.
BONUS: Documentary of drones by Nova.
Lindsay,
ReplyDeleteExcellent post. Your thesis is clearly stated (in the first sentence), you directly address the opposing viewpoints and concerns of folks, like the ACLU, and you have a firm analysis (comparing civilian death percentages).
Very convincing. As always, very well researched.
My only suggestion is to make adjustments to your first paragraph:
1. I would keep the thesis clear and where it is - but then dive into the controversy. Why are drones so controversial?
Answer that in the first paragraph.
2. Then, I would include your drone info paragraph, but keep it shorter (in line with your other paragraphs). You'll have to get selective with your information. Pull the best of the best from your research.
Other than that, the post is clear, well-written, and engaging.
GR: 95