The Pros And Cons Of Drone Warfare

The situation in the Middle East is a stark one. Terrorists groups have been appearing since the turn of the century and wreaking havoc across countries in the Middle East. Innocents are dying and the governments of the Middle East are becoming corrupted by the influence of radical jihadists. Since 9/11 the United States has truly taken it upon itself to put a stop to the spread of this terrorism (Bergen and Tiedemann 12-18). Today the United States’ weapon of choice against terrorists is the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). These UAVs are referred to as drones, and they are extremely efficient. Drones have a relatively low cost compared to other military weaponry, and eliminate terrorists with no risk to American life. This is not to say
Opponents of drones like to argue that drones are too destructive. While a drone warhead does pack quite a punch, the common military fighter jet the F-16 and Tomahawk cruise missiles have far greater warheads that are less precise and have a bigger payload than drone warheads. With greater payloads these missiles cause more collateral damage and thus more civilian casualties (Byman 32-43). It should also be mentioned that the 1 out of 3 civilian deaths estimated by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism created by drones is less than that of what it be for other methods (Byman 32-43). Drones can pick up civilians with real time surveillance as well (Byman 32-43), and this makes them an even greater asset than a fighter pilot that could not tell a civilian from a light post at 50,000 feet. Opponents of drones will also make the argument that drones violate a nation’s sovereignty, but would a ground or air campaign not do the same? Drones fit into a sweet spot with the government’s needs as of today, and this is why they are the best alternative for the