Yes, they are much more effective than all out war While I may or may not agree with killing people at all, I find that using unmanned drones to pinpoint specific locations and take out targets much more desirable than going to war or dropping a huge bomb on a large area. I think the problem most people have with drones is the fact that they are killing people at all. Let's put that aside for now--it's an entirely different debate. The drones allow for the killing to happen without putting our own people at risk.
Hey heloo hidn bwqnjc bxjodbhcbjhdbcbkwdbhjkbjbcbdbsbcdjbhbsdj jnj jdn j nn d d n dn dnd ndnd nd nd dnd nd dn dn dn dnd dndd nd dn ddnnd ndn d ndn nd ndnd n dnn d n ndndnd nd ndndnndndn nd nd dn d nd dn dn dn d d md
Any weapon used in the war on terror that saves American lives is a good one. To say you will not use any force your enemy fears prevents you from fully defending yourself. To use less than all available weapons to stop terror. Is to deny protection of your own people.
Drones are extremely effective--but not just in war. In a war, they are not much more effective than traditional planes. They use the same bombs, carry the same loads, etc. However, at home, they are useful like nothing else is. A drone can carry a package from point A to point B without concern for traffic or roads. A quadcopter can take pictures where a human never could.
They are good because they save peoples lives by carrying large amounts of water, fighting fires, doing aerial advertising, and they are doing a very very very big business in Hollywood right now by not putting peoples lives at risk . By this, scientists can study black bears with out harming them.
Yes, drones are effective in warfare. A drone allows a pilot to sit safely in a command center miles away from the site of a battle or sortie, thus protecting the pilot's life. Death in warfare, no matter which side, should be avoided at all costs. Thus, drones are effective.
War is hell. There is bloodshed and a terrible loss of lives. The validity of war, its motives, its devastation, its costs - that is another debate. Once at war, an enemy has been identified as a threat to a Nation and needs to be eliminated. UAVs and drones grant the military a way to eliminate that threat with absolutely no collateral damage to Soldiers' lives. For every target a drone has eliminated, a squad of several Soldiers has been saved from kicking in doors, clearing villages, and putting their lives in imminent danger. It could be said that drones miss targets - but unfortunately that is war. Soldiers, tanks, planes, and missiles have all shot the wrong targets before - drones are not unlike any of those in accuracy... But make no mistake, they are unlike any other war resource in that they can eliminate the threat to a Nation without putting even a single Soldier's life in any danger. Every target a drone has eliminated has saved the lives the Soldiers who would otherwise be called to eliminate those threats by hand.
Drones didn't invent civilian casualties. Trustworthy sources show a decline in civilian casualties due to the usage of drones (NYT, Reuters, Pakistani media). Once again media is messing with our heads, picturing a world of drones that act on their own and relentlessly kill innocent people. If a drone kills someone , it is still the decision of a person. The advantage of drones is the absence of danger for the person behind it. However, people will still make bad decisions whether they are on the ground in the air or miles away from the battlefied. But taking people out of combat is nevetheless a good thing
Drones are most effective in combat situations. They can zero in on a single house or cave reducing damage to property and injury to innocents to a minimum, while at the same time protecting our troops from harm. It is better to lose a drone than to lose a man, a squad, a platoon or even a company of out troops. Use of drones over domestic land is an entirely different debate.
While I may or may not agree with killing people at all, I find that using unmanned drones to pinpoint specific locations and take out targets much more desirable than going to war or dropping a huge bomb on a large area. I think the problem most people have with drones is the fact that they are killing people at all. Let's put that aside for now--it's an entirely different debate. The drones allow for the killing to happen without putting our own people at risk.
Drones are not effective. They kill innocent civilians. Patrick Henry once said, "Give me life, or give me liberty.." When we are getting attacked by drones and dying or getting severely injured are we getting life or liberty? I'd say no. The people should have a choice, I mean we are a democracy, right? A democracy means the people choose. The people should choose to have drones or not. Where are we getting the money to make these drones? Our taxes. Do you want to pay taxes when knowing the effects of the drones kill people? Think about it..
The primary goal of the US drone program is to kill terrorists, because terrorists kill US citizens. This all very obvious, but necessary to understand the argument. Foreign Nations have constantly stated that drones violate their sovereignty. This creates more enemies than it does allies, thereby posing an even greater threat to the American people. Once we understand this it becomes obvious that our Drone strike program is counterproductive.
Drone strikes often miss their targets killing innocent people. A Taliban commander, Baitullah Mehsud once said in a statement "If i campaign for 3 months to win over the hearts of the local population, I will get roughly 50-60 people on my side. But a single drone attack brings the whole village to my side." If the U.S. stopped fighting the war and spent 10% of the money on rebuilding infrastructure, and helping the people get back on their feet (like the 20 million people from the 2010 monsoon.) the effects of those things alone would do much more good than what we are doing now.