Is Technology a Good Enough Reason to Keep Fighting?

For my second comment paper, I’d like to highlight a few of the arguments of Daniel Bruntstetter in the article “Drones: The Future of Warfare?” Specifically, Bruntstetter focuses on the technical advantages of drones and the human element of drone warfare as a whole. I believe his findings to be accurate, but also lacking in crucial details that could change the minds of many Americans when deciding to support such a program. For technical advantages, Bruntstetter outlines the well-known benefits to using drones. Their ability to put human personnel at minimal risk during the operation is obviously positive, and their surveillance capability is paramount. The ability to pinpoint targeted areas without much collateral damage is still up for discussion, although great strides have been made in this issue. One problem I have with his findings, however, comes from his statement where he claims “the removal of pilots from the zone of combat…arguably eliminates the threat to our soldiers.” As I’ve stated in many of my comments on other classmates’ responses, I do not buy this statement. Sure, it is obvious that these pilots are not in direct danger simply because they are operating their drones far from the action. But, just because these soldiers are removed from all combat does not mean that they are completely safe. The United States still has a very large issue on their hands when it comes to protecting these drone operators from retaliation strikes. These men and women operators could be at great risk when it comes to their identities being released to the public. Are the pilots at fault when collateral damage takes place? This is one of the many issues at hand with drone warfare. Further, Bruntstetter’s criticism of drone warfare is the human element, a sentiment that I too share. Reports of orders to kill children and innocent civilians with drones still cloud the legitimacy of the entire operation. These questionable practices take a psychological toll on these pilots. He also mentions the bases where the drones take off from. Manned by soldiers, these men and women are also at risk. For someone to say drone warfare is a safe practice because it takes a soldier out of the combat, they don’t completely understand the entire picture. Bruntstetter, in the end, agrees that drone warfare is here to stay, although it should not take the place of fighting or other tactical practices. I believe Americans should learn the facts before simply asserting that the technological advances make warfare tolerable again.