The Controversy of Drone Warfare

1. Introduction

In recent years, the use of unmanned drones by the US military and its allies has become increasingly controversial. In particular, the use of so-called “targeted killings” or “assassinations” of suspected terrorists in countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan has raised questions about the legality and morality of such actions.

In his article “Targeted Killing and Drone Warfare”, Anderson attempts to justify the use of unmanned drone airstrikes as part of the concerted efforts of NATO allies to seek out and destroy suspected Al-Quadi hideouts in Pakistan.

2. Anderson’s Justification for Drone Airstrikes

Anderson begins by outlining the legal justification for such airstrikes, noting that they are in line with Article 51 of the UN Charter which allows for the use of force in self-defence. He goes on to argue that the targeting of suspected terrorists in Pakistan is a legitimate military action because it is part of the larger effort to combat the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

Anderson then provides a detailed account of how these airstrikes are carried out, highlighting the role of intelligence gathering and target selection. He argues that such precision strikes are necessary in order to minimise civilian casualties and maximise military effectiveness.

The author goes on to consider the effect of drone warfare on Pakistani public opinion, arguing that while there is some negative sentiment, overall the Pakistani people understand and support the need for such strikes. He also addresses the issue of civilian casualties, admitting that they do occur but arguing that they are inevitable in any war and that the number of civilians killed by drone strikes is relatively low when compared to other forms of warfare.

3. The tactics of drone warfare

Drone warfare is a type of aerial warfare where unmanned aircraft are used to attack targets on the ground. The use of drones began in the early 2000s as a way to conduct surveillance and collect intelligence. However, over time their capabilities have increased and they are now used to carry out airstrikes against targets in countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan. Drones are operated remotely by pilots who use joysticks to control their movements. They are equipped with cameras which allow pilots to see what is happening on the ground and make sure that they hit their targets accurately. One of the advantages of using drones is that they can stay in the air for long periods of time, meaning that they can conduct surveilance or carry out strikes without putting pilots at risk. Another advantage is that they can be equipped with a variety of weapons, including Hellfire missiles and 500-pound bombs. While drones have many benefits, there are also some disadvantages associated with their use. One worry is that because they are operated remotely, there is a risk that pilots may become desensitised to violence and begin to see human life as less valuable. Another concern is that drone strikes often result in civilian casualties, which can lead to negative public opinion towards the countries carrying out these attacks. Overall, drone warfare is a controversial topic with proponents arguing that it is a necessary tool for fighting terrorism, while opponents claim that it violates international law and causes more harm than good.

4. The effect of drone warfare

The effectof drone warfarehas been hotly debated since their inceptionin early 2000sas partof counterterrorand counterinsurgencyoperationsin variouscountriesincludingPakistan, Afghanistan,Yemenand Somalia. Supportersof drone warfarearguethat they are accurate,prevent civilian casualtiessince there is no risk to pilotsand allow for real-timeintellegencethrough surveillancebefore and during a strike. Opponents claimthat they are ineffectivein killintargetedindividuals, often result in high ratesof civilian casualtiesand lead to increasedanti-Americanismand radicalisation. Thereis also concernthat the use of dronescould lead to a new armsrace as othercountriesbegin to developtheirown drone technology.

5. The morality of drone warfare

The moralityof drone warfarehas been debated since their use beganin the early 2000s.Proponents argue thatdronesare a necessarytool for fightingterrorismand that they help to minimise civilian casualtiesby allowing for more precise strikes. Opponents claim that drone strikes often result in high rates of civilian casualties and that they violate international law. There is also concern that the use of drones could lead to a new arms race as other countries begin to develop their own drone technology.

6. Conclusion

Overall, there is a lot of controversy surrounding the use of drones for military purposes. Proponents argue that they are a necessary tool for fighting terrorism, while opponents claim that they cause more harm than good. It is important to consider both sides of the argument when making a decision about whether or not to support the use of drones.

FAQ

The author's purpose in writing this essay is to argue that drone warfare and targeted killing are morally wrong and should be stopped.

The intended audience for this essay is anyone who is interested in the topic of drone warfare and targeted killing.

The author establishes ethos by presenting himself as an expert on the topic of drones and military ethics, and by providing credible sources to support his claims. He uses pathos by describing the personal stories of innocent civilians who have been killed by drones, and he uses logos by presenting a well-reasoned argument against drone warfare and targeted killing.

Some of the key points made by Anderson in his argument are that drone warfare creates more terrorists than it kills, that it violates the principles of just war theory, and that it results in the death of innocent civilians.

The implications of Anderson's argument are that drone warfare should be ended immediately, as it is morally wrong and does more harm than good.