This house supports the use of drones by the military

As Pro, I will be arguing for the use of drones by the military. First, I will NOT be arguing that the government should use drones in EVERY type of possible situation. Can these drones be misused? Yes. Can bombs be misused? Yes. Guns? Yes. Ethical implications accompany every military action and weapon where human lives are at stake, including the use of drones. Instead, I WILL be arguing that the advantages of drones – as a whole – justify their use by the military in certain circumstances. Those advantages include improved surveillance of targets, improved reconnaissance of territory, improved weapons targeting, house clearing searches, recovery of injured soldiers, decoys, mobile communications, and the detection and triggering of enemy explosives.[1] Types of Military Drones The definition of drones, per the comments, is the following: unmanned, military vehicles – often remotely controlled by a human operator but with varying degrees of autonomy – that frequently are equipped with armament, radar, cameras, lasers, or sensors, amongst other tools For the purposes of familiarizing the reader, I will briefly summarize the two most common types of drones utilized by the military: (1) unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs); and (2) unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). 1. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) UGVs are ground-based drones, often varying in size depending on their purpose. UGVs are typically used in urban combat environments – by 2008, over 4,000 were employed in Iraq – because of their ability to entire into confined spaces and navigate around obstacles.[1] UGVs can be used for the detection and disposal of enemy explosives, reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, house clearing searches, logistics, fire-fighting, mobile communications links, mobile power supplies, decoy targets, recovery of injured soldiers, and vehicle checkpoints.[1] 2. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) UAVs are aerial drones – ranging in size from hand-held to that of manned aircraft – that carry out a variety of functions. UAVs can stay in the air for up to 30 hours and are capable of travelling significant distances. Most UAVs are used in reconnaissance, surveillance, and target destination, but have increasingly been used to deploy weapons in recent years.[1] Arguments for the Use of Military Drones 1. Drones provide real-time information that could not be obtained by other means Drones allow the military to acquire real-time information about enemy activities and terrain that could not otherwise be acquired in a fast-changing environment – information that aids tactical choices and improves civilian and allied safety. Military personnel can use drones to quickly and accurately survey the front line and surrounding areas to detect improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and potential ambushes on convoy routes; locate and follow enemy targets; locate, protect, or avoid civilians; and other purposes related to real-time information about on-the-ground situations.[2][3] This instant, real-time information frequently cannot be acquired by other means. Satellites, which are often used for quasi-surveillance purposes, are too limited in number to cover every possible combat location, cannot see through cloud obstructions, cannot be employed at a moment’s notice, and can obtain only a limited top-down image that cannot look into or under structures. Similarly, on the ground troops have limited mobility, limited vision, and are at risk for being discovered or attacked. Drones are a highly mobile tool that can view wide areas, from different viewpoints, in a matter of minutes.[3] No other technology offers this capability. Without drones, a wide-array of valuable information would be unobtainable. This information about enemy activities, terrain, and civilians ultimately informs the military’s tactical choices – improving outcome and saving lives. 2. Drones reduce civilian and non-target casualties With improved surveillance of enemy activities, the military can make more informed decisions with regard to attacks. The ability to identify and follow targets more accurately than conventional pilots or ground troops allows the military to initiate strikes that will be more precise and occur at a time that will minimize civilian casualties – particularly when the strikes are deployed from the drone itself. This combination of tools offered by the drone is not available through any other technology. Several studies suggest that drone-based attacks are more effective at reducing collateral damage than previous types of weapons – such as bombs or conventional missile strikes.[4] The estimated percentage of civilian deaths for drone strikes varies, with four different studies ranging from as a low as 4 percent to as high as 20 percent.[4] In the last two decades, other forms of conflict and military strikes have incurred civilian deaths ranging from 33 percent to more than 80 percent.[4] There is, of course, risk in comparing these numbers due to the different types of warfare being analyzed, but in the least we can infer that drone attacks appear to be safer for civilians than other forms of military attack that have been employed in the past. Moreover, drone strikes have become safer for civilians over time. Civilian casualties have continuously decreased as the military gains greater experience and skill with the technology. Between 2004 and 2007, the estimated civilian death rate from drone strikes was 16 percent.[5] Between 2008 and 2012, the civilian death rate was about 10 percent.[5] In 2012, the civilian death rate was estimated as a low as 1 percent.[5] This decreasing rate of civilian deaths supports the military’s increasing ability to effectively and prudently employ drones for attack purposes. **Important** Whether the military should be widely using drones for targeted strikes is not an argument against the use of drones. Instead, it is an argument against the military’s policy of widespread targeted killings – not the subject of this debate. Drones allow effective, efficient, and informed missile strikes, as compared to other methods. How often we should be using this tool, and in what contexts, is a different issue from whether the military should ever use drones. Further, many drones carry out purposes unrelated to missile strikes, as discussed previously, which confer tremendous benefit to the military’s effectiveness. Thus, the issue is whether the military should have this tool available at all, and – due to the many advantages of drones – the military should have it available. 3. Reduced Soldier Casualty and Improved Safety Drones also have the important advantage of keeping soldiers out of harm’s way. Soldiers can employ drones to detect and defuse bombs, investigate buildings and alleys, survey perimeters, survey enemy territory, rescue and provide cover for endangered soldiers, follow or engage enemy combatants, and a multitude of other uses – all without having to place a soldier in a dangerous situation.[1-3] The value of this protection is the same as any former technology that serves to save soldier’s lives, such as armor to protect vehicles and soldiers, binoculars to view enemies and terrains from afar, and so on. Drones allow soldiers to accomplish their missions without personally stepping into potential harm, a clear benefit in saving lives. Conclusion Drones provide numerous advantages that improve the information available to the military, improve the effectiveness of military strikes, and reduce soldier and civilian casualties. These improvements save lives and should be employed by the military. Whether some types of drones are being misused in targeted killings is an important issue, but it is an argument against how certain drones should be used by the military, not whether they should be used by the military at all. Sources [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com...