UAVs are the best possible weapon for the job.  We need to eliminate terrorists somehow and UAVs are the best possible equipment with which to carry out this mission. All the other options either would result in significantly more casualties or would have other problems that would likely allow terrorists to escape.  First there is the collateral damage that would be caused by using other alternatives to striking terrorists. Professor Plaw of the University of Massachusetts says that when terrorists were being confronted by the Pakistani Army, who were attacking at the behest of the United States, 46% of casualties were collateral damage. A similar number of 41% was the figure when Israel was targeting Hamas. [1] When compared to the 16 or 28% collateral damage figures for UAVs the choice should be easy.  Moreover other options have other disadvantages. Sending a hit squad in to eliminate terrorists may mean little collateral damage but would cause a diplomatic crisis as it would be tantamount to invading another country. Using a missile or local support on the other hand significantly increases the chances of the target escaping. Pakistan’s ISI, military intelligence, has for example been accused of helping the Taliban – they could hardly be trusted to kill them. [2]  [1] Shane, Scott, ‘The Moral Case for Drones’, The New York Times, 14 July 2012.  [2] Perlez, Jane, ‘Pakistan Scorns U.S. Scolding on Terrorism’, The New York Times, 23 September 2011.