The Instigator
AllAboutContent
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Blargog
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Global Drone Warfare Preventable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,291 times Debate No: 18889
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

AllAboutContent

Pro

No doubt we can not avoid drone warfare. It's already here. This can and likely will get out of control and become global...unless we start thinking about how to prevent it from happening. I believe it's doable. It might take some drastic measures though.

(CNN) -- Drone technology is spreading rapidly. As many as 50 countries are developing or purchasing these systems, including China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and Iran.
Even non-state actors are involved. Hezbollah reportedly has deployed an Iranian-designed drone. Iran is developing a new drone aircraft with a range of more than 600 miles. These systems are used mostly for surveillance, but it is not difficult to equip the aircraft with missiles and bombs. Recently in Massachusetts, a man was arrested for plotting to place explosives on a drone aircraft and fly it into the Pentagon or the Capitol building. Private contractors are getting into the business as well. We now have companies offering drones-for-hire...
Blargog

Con

Drone Warfare although is being available to more and more countries, it would not be hard to prevent more use of the weapon of war. One way we could prevent this would be to sign an agreement to not use Drones. NATO has done this for landmines and flamethrowers. And all the countries now are holding up to these agreements as agreed. Another solution would to just resort back to human pilots. Humans have a moral conscience so they will be able to make better decisions in their mind to shed less blood. Even though Drone Warfare is growing rapidly, a few assertive steps could be taken to prevent it.
Debate Round No. 1
AllAboutContent

Pro

To argue for the preventability of the global drone warfare, all I need to say is let us take a look of the status of the global nuclear warfare.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org...), 9 countries in the world are considered "nuclear powers" because they possess nuclear weapons. Some of these countries have been historically archenemies of each other. Yet, to this day, no country has used nuclear weapons against its enemy since the end of World War II.

The reasons are: 1) the existence of the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), and 2) the over-powering strength of U.S. military and intelligence which have acted as the de facto "global police".

I believe that most, if not all, countries should participate in discussion NOW on how to curtail the proliferation of drone development for military use. I also believe that in order to scare people from using drones in fighting a war, U.S. should develop its drone warfare capability to be the strongest in the world and continue to policing the world. That's what a leader should do!
Blargog

Con

Even though no one has used a nuclear weapon against another nation since WII, that is something totally different compared to drone warfare.

Nuclear war is the possibility of human extinction. The United States Enola Gay dropped the world's first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945. In just four months it is estimated that 130,000-150,000 people had died. But on the initial blast, 66,000 people died. And that was just ONE bomb. Now the U.S has 5,113 active and inactive nuclear warheads. Only about 1000 are active but since there are 196 countries in the world, that is enough to drop 5.1 nuclear warheads on every country in the world. You simply cannot compare nuclear warfare to drone warfare. While nuclear weapons are designed to kill many thousands and even millions of people at a time, a drone is a pinpoint weapon made to kill only a certain number of people.

If the U.S. started using more drones than anyone else, people would see that as imperialistic. It would using our power to force other countries to not do things they would otherwise want to do. Plus, if the U.S. developed the strongest drone "army" wouldn't that defeat the purposes of not having drones? According to your statement, the U.S. would become the only country to have drones.
Debate Round No. 2
AllAboutContent

Pro

AllAboutContent forfeited this round.
Blargog

Con

Blargog forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
AllAboutContent

Pro

You made a very good point. It is very true that a nuclear bomb can devastate on a much larger scale than what a drone can do, based on historical data we have learned from the news media reports. But who is to say the devastation caused by a drone attack is forever limited to the current scale? If I were in charge of defence of this country, I'd make sure there is robust research and development going on to make the most powerful drones humanly possible - I'd like to see nuclear powered-drones carrying nuclear weapons to ensure we remain the world's number 1 country on the offense.

However, I think you are wrong in thinking that people would see this country as imperialistic if the U.S. started using more drones than anyone else. People have been seeing us as imperialistic, long before the word 'drone' made its regular appearance in the newspapers. And, I do believe the U.S. has already started, not 'if started', using drones regularly in the current conflict with extremist Muslim gorillas. It is unavoidable the label of imperialist since it comes with the territory of being the world's number 1 power in military and financial might.

Do I still believe global drone warfare is preventable? You bet. It's preventable if and only if the U.S. remains strong and in control. If we stay in control, we can 'police' other countries in order to maintain certain balance in world peace. What saves the world from human extinction is the fact that we, the majority of the citizens of this country, believe in humanitarianism. This belief, coupled with our democratic political system, guides us in our actions. I think the U.S. will lead the world in the battle of good and evil, and in the end good will win.
Blargog

Con

Blargog forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
AllAboutContent

Pro

Your turn, Blargog.
Blargog

Con

The problem with the idea that nuclear war heads could be used with drones is not only daunting, but more importantly, unlikely. If the US was to add nuclear warheads to their drone's armament, other countries would also be obliged to add nuclear warheads to their drone's armaments. They won't necessarily use them though. For example, after the world found out that the US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945, our allies such as Great Britain and Russia started to develop their own nuclear weapons. Yet no other country has used them.

Drones have are being more developed and used more and more at present times. The military is still developing robots that can go into buildings with a gun attached and scout out dangerous areas. I feel that, many Western countries and America's allies will soon put human life in more importance than anything else.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
This was hardly a debate. In a debate, people pick sides and stay on them; you two waffled back and forth, without either one of you touching the Con side of this issue.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
AllAboutContentBlargogTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: what the he'll is this debate about? pro was supposed to argue that global drone warfare is preventable, con was supposed to argue that it wasnt. both had contrasting arguments and left the voters in a confused state.....