After reading the articles due for Thursday’s
lecture, my initial beliefs of drone warfare changed drastically. Now, rather
than looking at drones as simply remarkable pieces of advanced technology that
“seem really cool”, I view drones as killing machines that are responsible for
the deaths of countless non-combatants. In Amanda Mullins article, she states
that between 2004 and 2012, U.S. drone strikes killed approximately 474-881 civilians
in Pakistan (176 which were children). This is a ridiculously high number, and
forces me to question if Americas current usage of drones is ethically
acceptable.
The
overall concept of drone warfare seems to make sense, especially after reading
the first chapter of P.W. Singers, Wired
For War, which describes the fact that certain robots can replace American
troops in highly dangerous situations, and potentially save thousands of lives.
However, I completely agree with David Rodin’s belief that Western powers need
to reconsider their current air strike tactics which have been responsible for
many non-combatant fatalities, and replace these strikes with smart targeting
tactics. For example, in a hypothetical situation where a terrorist is located
in a house that knowingly also contains five unwilling civilians, than it is
ethically irresponsible for the United States to bomb the house. After all, if
one imagines an attack like that on U.S. soil, it would clearly be considered a
terrorist attack, and it is biased to hold a double standard.
In
order for drones to be justified, the goal must be to save lives, not destroy
them. Fighting a ‘War On Terror’ with terrorist tactics is extremely
hypocritical. Obviously it will be virtually impossible to perfect drone
attacks to the point that there are never any non-combatant casualties, but there
remains a lot of room for improvement. I hope we make progress in limiting civilian
causalities through the usage of drone strikes, but I fear the problem will
only get worse.
"In order for drones to be justified, the goal must be to save lives, not destroy them"
ReplyDeleteWhy is this the goal? Is this everyone's goal? I am not saying that you are wrong, of course, but why?
I really enjoyed your post, and do go off of Professor Shirk's comment, I wonder why you believe the problem will only get worse? If there is room for improvement, and it is clear that there is an issue, shouldn't the problem only get better from here?
ReplyDeleteMaybe I am a bit pessimistic, but drone warfare is most likely going to increase as we move forward (as proven by the Obama administration) and it just seems as if killing is becoming to easy. When there is no personal risk involved, administrations will be much more likely to pull the trigger and not think of the potential damage that it could cause. I just woke up this morning to a new headline that stated "10 killed in Pakistan by U.S. Drone". It is my hope that we will save drone warfare for only crucial situations, and not take advantage of such a destructive tool.
DeleteI agree with your comments that drones and other air strike tactics are responsible for non-combatant fatalities. However, the United States will continue to invest in the production of drones to replace American troops. The War on Terror has been going on for many years, and the United States is using drones as an instrument to help fight the War on Terrorism. I believe the media plays a huge role in giving Americans a false since of security. However, the United States does not have a strong foundation on how to fight the War on Terror.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is wrong for U.S. drone strikes to destroy innocent lives. Only time will tell if this issue of noncombatant casualties will improve or worsen. The number of individuals who view the United States as an enemy will grow as our country continues to kill noncombatants with drone strikes. The United States must find a way of improving the accuracy in their drone strikes.
ReplyDelete