After reading the article Drones: The Future of Warfare, written
by Daniel Bruntstetter, I would like to point out some arguments that I agree
with and disagree with. Bruntstetter focuses on the technical advantages,
tactical limitations, and the overall human element.
First, let’s
look at the technical advantages. He mentions a lot of the obvious benefits: drones
are able to go into enemy territory without putting humans at risk, ability to
provide surveillance data, remove pilots from zone of combat, etc. I agree with
most of his arguments. I agree that drones are a huge asset to the American
arsenal. I think drones are better when used for surveillance and reconnaissance,
than assaulting. When drones conduct reconnaissance they are quiet and hard to
detect. However, if the enemy has anti-aircraft systems the drone is
defenseless. Drones are not fast, and if they’re used for reconnaissance they
usually don’t have firepower. If humans were used to gather intelligence and
got discovered by enemy, they could defend themselves and fight back. A great
demonstration of a drone being used for reconnaissance is in the popular movie Act of Valor. Act of Valor is a movie about Navy SEALs. The SEALs used a raven, a
small drone, to discretely monitor an enemy compound. The raven allowed the
SEAL team to get a birds’ eye view of the whole area without being compromised.
I understand that neither drone nor human is perfect, but I believe drones are
a great tool America
can use for reconnaissance.
I do not
agree that drones are the most efficient method for assaulting a target. Bruntstetter
says “the pinpoint accuracy of their missiles and computer software that models
the blast area of each proposed strike greatly reduces collateral damage
compared to other weapons systems, and potentially could even eliminate it.” This
may be true but I still believe a human pilot in a fighter jet is the best
choice. Drones may have pinpoint accuracy when firing missiles, but that is
assaulting a target that is on the ground. What if there’s an aerial attack? In
a dogfight a drone cannot possibly do the maneuvers that a trained fighter
pilot can. Maybe one day drones will be able to perform aerial maneuvers, but I’m
sure that can be very costly to design.
I agree
that drones do remove some humans from the combat zone; however, that does not
make them ‘safe’. Pilots controlling drones still have shown the same symptoms
of PTSD. Also, the personnel where the drones are being launched from are at
risk of being attacked. Overall, I believe that drones can be helpful in
reconnaissance missions, but lack the tactical capabilities to perform assault
missions. I can not see drones taking the place of humans any time soon. I
think there will always be problems. In my eyes the most deadly weapon will
always be the human mind.
I agree with this post. It's hard to remove man from war, considering man created war. Overall, drones should be a secondary method, not the main course of action by any nation. They would surely lose if that is the case.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the statement that drones remove some humans from the combat zone. As Bruntstetter points out drones require hundreds of individuals to operate it. Although, it is great that pilots are taken out of the combat zones; there are still dangerous jobs that are being performed by humans: informants and handlers. Informants/handlers provide information of terrorist movement. It is proven that humans are still necessary during warfare.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Matt that drones should be a secondary method of action by a nation. Even though drones are able to remove the individual from the combat zone, there are other military actions that can be more affective. However, I do agree with Cody that they are helpful for surveillance and reconnaissance by providing a convenient aerial view. By developing the right tactics, drones can provide the United States with an advantage in warfare over other countries. However, even with the right tactics drones cannot successfully replace humans in war.
ReplyDelete