Before we get into the different side we first have to look into some of the background going into the War on Terror. The War on Terror started soon after September 11, 2001, when al Qaeda attacked the World Trade centers in New York. In the war on terror, the military used new ways to find and kill the enemy. The new way is drones …show more content…
The first argument according to drones.procon.org is that “Drone strikes make the United States safer by decimating terrorist networks across the world.” The drone strike has killed around 3,500 militants and due to these strikes have saved lives. A hostage reporter stated that drones were a “terrifying presence for militants.
The second argument according to drones.procon.org is that “Drone strikes are legal under the international law.” The United States claims that their drone strikes are legal under the international law as self-defense. It is legal to target groups in self-defense and is legal to attack them if the nation that they are in are not able to control the group. The nations have to give consent to this and officially the nations have given consent to this. The international law also allows the United State to use anticipatory self-defense.
The last argument according to drones.procon.org is that “Drone strikes are carried out with the collaboration and encouragement of local governments, and make those countries safer.” The US drone strikes help terrorist threats and help ensure domestic peace and stability. Some countries even ask for more strikes not less than many believe. With the help of the drone strike, there has been a decrease in violence in those