The Instigator
Westsidems
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
G131994
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Good vs bad of US drone strikes on other countries

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,859 times Debate No: 35019
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Westsidems

Con

1st round is just acceptance, the pro will take on saying that the benefits of drone strikes by the united states outweigh the harms
G131994

Pro

I will accept and look forward to your opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Westsidems

Con

Contention 1: Drone strikes increase terrorism
The use of drone strikes in foreign nations has led to the mass slaughter of children and civilians. Not only are these deaths a problem, but the deaths of civilians also leads to huge adverse effects for the United States.
According to a CNN article,, 2012:
"Drone Strikes Kill, Maim and Traumatize Too Many Civilians, U.S. Study Says." CNN. Cable News Network, 25 Sept. 2012. Web. 08 June 2013. <http://www.cnn.com...;.
"In contrast to more conservative U.S. statements, the Stanford/NYU report -- titled "Living Under Drones" -- offers starker figures published by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an independent organization based at City University in London. "TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 - 1,362 individuals," according to the Stanford/NYU study. Based on interviews with witnesses, victims and experts, the report accuses the CIA of "double-striking" a target, moments after the initial hit, thereby killing first responders."
One of the uses of drone strikes is to deter terrorism, but under our current policy, the use of drone strikes has actually increased terrorism, and has fueled radicalism throughout targeted areas. One example of this is in Yemen, one of the most targeted areas by the U.S.
According to Glenn Greenwald for the guardian in 2013
Greenwald, Glenn. "A Young Yemeni Writer on the Impact and Morality of Drone-bombing His Country." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 01 May 2013. Web. 11 June 2013. <http://www.guardian.co.uk...;.
Certainly, there may be short-term military gains from killing militant leaders in these strikes, but they are minuscule compared with the long-term damage the drone program is causing. A new generation of leaders is spontaneously emerging in furious retaliation to attacks on their territories and tribes. This is why A.Q.A.P. is much stronger in Yemen today than it was a few years ago. In 2009, A.Q.A.P. had only a few hundred members and controlled no territory; today it has, along with Ansar al-Sharia, at least 1,000 members and controls substantial amounts of territory.
Contention 2: Drone Strikes leads to an arms race
Drone strikes not only increase terrorism, but due to their broad use by the United States, a drones arms race is now being seen throughout the world.
According to David Wood for Huffington Post in 2012:
Wood, David. "American Drones Ignite New Arms Race From Gaza To Iran To China." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 27 Nov. 2012. Web. 11 June 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;.
Small, inexpensive and lethal, drones enable everyone from terrorists to the Chinese People's Liberation Army to engage in what the Pentagon acknowledges is a new arms race with "alarming" consequences. More than 50 countries operate surveillance drones and, increasingly, are fitting them with weapons. Already, the Pentagon is worried that China not only is engaged in an "alarming" effort to develop and field high-tech drones, but it intends to sell drone technology abroad, according to the Pentagon report.
Indeed, the momentum of the drone wars seems irresistible. "The increasing worldwide focus on unmanned systems highlights how the U.S. military"s success has changed global strategic thinking and spurred a race for unmanned aircraft," the Pentagon study reported. A new Pentagon study frets that enemy drones could be a "very serious threat" to U.S. aircraft carriers in the Pacific and elsewhere, as well as to "supply convoys and other combat support assets which have not had to deal with an airborne threat in generations." On the battlefield, an enemy could create chaos and confusion simply by flooding the airspace with drones, and any U.S. bases within drone range would have to be closed, the report said.
The threat from a drone arms race not only stems from other countries, but it also stems from the ability for these countries to sell these drones to terrorists. In fact Iran, the leading state sponsor of terrorism, has already began selling drones to terrorist groups.
According to Jeremy Hsu for Mother Jones in 2013:
Hsu, Jeffrey. "Cheap Drones Made in China Could Arm U.S. Foes." MNN - Mother Nature Network. Mother Nature Network, 03 Apr. 2013. Web. 11 June 2013. <http://www.mnn.com...;.
Iran has already sold its own crude drones to countries such as Syria and organizations such as Hezbollah, a militant group based in Lebanon and backed by Iran. In addition, China-made drones would allow countries like Iran and North Korea to obtain technology which Western countries refuse to sell.
Contention 3: Drone Strikes ultimately devastate communities.
Sub point a: Drone strikes create poverty
Drone strikes not only have adverse effects for the United States, but more harms to civilians come about due to drone strikes as well. Poverty in these regions is being exacerbated due to drone strikes.
According to Kevin Gosztola in 2012:
Gosztala, Kevin. "The Economic Toll US Drones Have on Pakistani Communities | The Dissenter." The Economic Toll US Drones Have on Pakistani Communities | The Dissenter. The Dissenter, 25 Sept. 2012. Web. 11 June 2013. <http://dissenter.firedoglake.com...;.
A new report from the International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic of Stanford Law School exhaustively details the toll that United States drones are exacting on Pakistani communities. Multiple families can be impacted by drone strikes because in North Waziristan, as the report describes, extended families live together in compounds that often contain several smaller individual structures." Strikes can do damage to "three or four surrounding houses," in addition to the target house. This destruction has an incredible effect because "underdevelopment and poverty are particularly stark" in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) with "savings, insurance and social safety nets" mostly unavailable "Primary income earners" are often incapacitated by drone strikes. Men typically provide for families. When they become victims, families lose a key source of income. Children are forced to abandon education and enter the workforce. Families can rack up gigantic medical bills as a result of surgeries, mental health care or having to stay in the hospital after being injured in strikes. There are no "major emergency medical centers or adequate hospitals in North Waziristan," which means victims often go to Peshawar and have to journey over "rough terrain" and through "poor security" to get treatment. This can take hours or several days.
The use of drone strikes create poverty within impacted regions. By destroying houses, and wounding the primary income earners within families, drone strikes force children to stop education and to instead find a job.
Sub point b: Drone strikes prevent children from getting education
Due to drone strikes, children are either forced away from education, or in fact must work due to the primary income earner in their family being wounded.
According to the global justice clinic at NYU School of Law in 2012:
GLOBAL JUSTICE CLINIC AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW, LIVING UNDER DRONES: DEATH, INJURY, AND TRAUMA TO
CIVILIANS FROM USDRONE PRACTICES IN PAKISTAN (2012). http://livingunderdrones.org...
First, some of those injured in strikes reported reduced access to education and desire to learn because of the physical, emotional, and financial impacts of the strike.
G131994

Pro

My argument will be based around the idea that the drones are the best option in a bad situation.

Drone strikes target terrorist. Terrorists that have killed or plan to kill hundreds if not thousands of innocent people. I will presume that you accept the fact we need to find some way of dealing with this threat.

So now we must consider the options for dealing with the threat.

Option 1 :large military ground operation this has a number problems not only is it hugely costly but as seen in Afghanistan and Iraq the danger to our troops and civilians is extremely high. In Iraq since 2003 around 115,000 of civilians have died countless more seriously hurt and maimed for life. Controlled precision drone strikes are a lot safer for both civilian and military personal (http://www.iraqbodycount.org...).

Option 2 :Use local security forces to deal with the terrorist camps . If this it worked would be perhaps the better option however Pakistan forces have proven themselves unable to deal with the threat time and time again. A prime example of this was Osama bin Laden. He was living within one mile of a large military academy in Pakistan for nearly a decade the local authorities had either no idea he was living there or they were aware and had no desire to inform the USA. Either way they are clearly not up to the task of dealing with such a large problem.

Option 3: do nothing. This in my view is not an option at all. By doing nothing not only will we be sending the wrong message, but also we will be allowing the terrorist a free space to train to go and acquire the necessary skills to bring mass destruction and terror to innocent people.

Drones are not the perfect solution but are clearly the best weapon in dealing with terrorist training camps in foreign countries who are otherwise unable to stop such men. Mistakes are made I will not contest that. However using your own figures just under 3000 terrorists have been killed by drone attacks the 9/11 attacks involved only 19 terrorists the London bombings only 4 and the Mumbai attacks 10 men in total 33 terrorist killed nearly 3500 and injuring 7000 people. The fact drone strike have killed 3000 men who"s sole aim in life was to destroy the lives of others demonstrate the effectiveness of the drones. (https://en.wikipedia.org...) ,( http://en.wikipedia.org...) ,( http://en.wikipedia.org...)

You say the gains from drone strikes are "" minuscule compared with the long-term damage"" however "" With an average of more than one suicide bombing every week, 35,000 Pakistanis have died since 9/11"" surely taking a strong stance against terrorism w are supporting both the local people and economy. http://www.bbc.co.uk...

You also say "" Drone Strikes leads to an arms race"". No the development of drone led to an arms race not the deployment of them therefore your argument is irrelevant to the debate. When the tank was developed by Britten in 1915 other countries started developing them as well. This a natural part of modern warfare. To reiterate regardless if the USA continues to use the drones or not China and Iran will still continue to develop them.

You say "" The use of drone strikes create poverty within impacted regions."" Equally terrorism within a region creates poverty. The damage from a drone strike can be repaired in most cases however if a region is a base for terrorism the area can never reach its economic potential meaning it is almost guaranteed to stay in poverty. (http://securipedia.eu...)

P.S can you please repost some of your links as the don"t seem to be working in my browser.
Debate Round No. 2
Westsidems

Con

Westsidems forfeited this round.
G131994

Pro

'
Posted by Westsidems 1 hour ago

Westsidems

I have to end this debate, sorry, my laptop isnt working properly so i cant search evidence or get the necessary citations, another time, i will start a new debate over this, sorry'



We shall finish this debate another time therefore please do NOT vote on this debate.

Thankyou
Debate Round No. 3
Westsidems

Con

Westsidems forfeited this round.
G131994

Pro

Please don't vote read above or in comments for reasons.
Debate Round No. 4
Westsidems

Con

Westsidems forfeited this round.
G131994

Pro

G131994 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by G131994 4 years ago
G131994
Thats ok
Send me a challenge when you are able to do this properly
Posted by Westsidems 4 years ago
Westsidems
I have to end this debate, sorry, my laptop isnt working properly so i cant search evidence or get the necessary citations, another time, i will start a new debate over this, sorry
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Had I the time I'd take this. Doubly so since I like con's stance that there are benefits, but they are outweighed.
Posted by 2-D 4 years ago
2-D
You've set up a difficult case sir. Drone strikes without declaring war that equate to political assassination are great. Good luck Pro!
No votes have been placed for this debate.