Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes,I think the U.S. should use drones.

    Drones should be used because drone attacks are less dangerous than any other attacks like nuclear bombing.Drones also should be used because drones can hold up to 3,000 pounds of bombs and missiles.Drones are also helpful because they are able to stay in the air for days and also pilots from facing danger in the battlefield

  • US Should Use Drones

    Yes, the United States should use remote-controlled drones in warfare. Such drones put aircraft pilots at less risk during combat operations, as those pilots are many miles away inside of command facilities. Thus, lives are saved. War is a terrible thing, but the more lives that can be saved, the better.

  • Drones kill innocent people.

    I think it would be much more reliable of we just went in ourselves and took "the bad guys" out rather than depending on a machine. Would it be more cost efficent? Yes. But who wants a killing machine that is cheap to buy? That is just asking for trouble.

  • Drones aren't the problem

    The problem is how they're used. Drones don't have a "civilian target mode", they're just used by operators who don't pay enough attention to who dies. Would a pilot riding in jet killing lots of people (either hostile or civilian) be more appealing than a drone killing lots of people? Drone operators are stating to become more aware of the damage that's being caused as some of them are reporting PTSD. Drones could be more helpful if they were used right.

  • You cannot go backwards on technology.

    The United States must have the technological edge over others in the military and security fields. Wars have been one and lost because of technology and the relative low casualities of U.S troops vs those of lesser technology can be attributed to that. Drones are used for much more than just dropping a hellfire missile on an insurgent they are also used in invaluable surveillance. Although I do believe that these drones should follow every strict Geneva convention or other rules of war. Also those rules must be updated to police the use of this new technology.

  • But...

    But what will happen when China or Russia develop their own drones? Are we going to allow them to fly over our territory? Will the U.N. implement its own rules as to the use of drones? Will countries with drones follow U.N. rules given the history of the use of drones? How much longer until another country build its own drones?

    Posted by: Aned
  • Yes, Drones are a step towards non-human warefare

    Using drones is a huge step towards a future that can include combat without human loss. Society changes the way it views issues when changes are made. At one time it was thought that slavery was acceptable, you could murder someone if it was a 'fair fight', and arranged marriages were the norm. Drones are the first step towards our new norm being that countries can resolve disputes without killing a bunch of their people to do so.

  • When used instead of feet on the ground they have their purpose.

    Though they are far from perfect or pin-point accurate; the fact is human presence is no more accurate or perfect itself. There are some situations where utilizing an aircraft for an operation makes sense logistically, financially, and even emotionally as the operator of the drone is removed enough from the situation. Though they are absolutely not a cure-all and there should be stricter limitations of use than currently in place, I don't think it would be wise to out-law them.

  • I think the military should use drones

    I think that t military should use drones because sometimes drones have cameras that can be used in many innovative ways. They can also be controlled by a joy stick which means that they can be safe at their headquarters. Drones can also stay in air for days while pilots can only stay for a few hours or days

  • Good for military usage

    Only military should use them, but not citizens. It is a debatable opinion to use drones. Some could argue yes for like a protection issue, others could argue no because they could malfunction and maybe even kill someone. My statement is yes for military usage for their missions. It'd be so much better for the real people not to get killed.

  • 37 innocent killed= 1 terrorist killed

    The ratio for a drone attack in another country (because there are no drones used in the us) is 37 innocent for 1 terrorist. How is that fair at all? Is that fair to you? Would you like to be killed because of 1 terrorist which happens to be near you?

  • No. They are inhumane.

    The scariest thing about drones is how they remove everyone except the target from harm's way. By dehumanizing the enemy, the war effort is turned into a video game and people begin to neglect to horrors of what they are doing. In addition, we kill many innocent people and then just reclassify those people so that they are part of the targeted group. It's shameful that America behaves this way, and it's no wonder that other countries hate us.

  • Say no to industrial killing

    Using drones makes killing quite easy and disrespectfull. The way you kill persons with a drone is industrial and planned. Didn't we have that already in the second world war or in vietnam? I think we should all have noticed by now that this kind of killing doesn't lead us to any good place.

  • Civilians are killed

    There were many incidents where innocent people were killed by drones, because the target person was below civilians who didn't do something criminal. Yes, you could try to avoid this but the temptation is (for some people) quite big to sacrifice some innocent persons for the succes of their drone mission. That's unacceptable!

  • Drones are cowardly

    Drones are absolutely cowardly because the only risk america has when using drones is money. In war both sides should risk their lives to reach their target. It is a big mental load for both sides. The people who control the drones can just live their live like nobody happended even through they killed humans that day.

  • Drones are cowardly

    Drones are absolutely cowardly because the only risk america has when using drones is money. In war both sides should risk their lives to reach their target. It is a big mental load for both sides. The people who control the drones can just live their live like nobody happended even through they killed humans that day.

  • Drones should be forbidden!

    In my opinion, drones should be forbidden because they avoid a personal confrontation. That makes killing quite easy and industrial. Didn't we have that already? The planned and industrial killing of thousands of people in the second world war or in Vietnam? And now the USA really want to continue with this method to kill people? I would be scarefull.

  • Attack drones should not be used!

    The targeted assassinations conducted by the US military against insurgents in the Middle East and Afghanistan are inhumane. They are in direct opposition to international laws stating that assassinations cannot occur without a state of outright war. The drones are impeding the sovereignty of Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries suspected of containing terrorists. Also, drones kill a lot of people who have nothing to do with militants; once, an old lady was returning from the grocery store with vegetables for her children, and she was blown up by a drone strike. Finally, if drones are added to national arsenals, war will be really cheap; no lives are lost, and hand civilians great danger of constant war.

  • It's more then just warfare we are talking about!

    These versions of the machines are meant to kill. But their cousins are just as bad. Think of it. Little machines passing almost unnoticed have already been used in police investigations. You are probably wondering why this is such a big deal but do you really want to be under surveillance? We don't know what the government will use them for but either way, I will not feel safe.

  • Drones kill innocent people.

    I think it would be much more reliable of we just went in ourselves and took "the bad guys" out rather than depending on a machine. Would it be more cost efficent? Yes. But who wants a killing machine that is cheap to buy? That is just asking for trouble.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.