Good vs bad of US drone strikes on other countries

My argument will be based around the idea that the drones are the best option in a bad situation. Drone strikes target terrorist. Terrorists that have killed or plan to kill hundreds if not thousands of innocent people. I will presume that you accept the fact we need to find some way of dealing with this threat. So now we must consider the options for dealing with the threat. Option 1 :large military ground operation this has a number problems not only is it hugely costly but as seen in Afghanistan and Iraq the danger to our troops and civilians is extremely high. In Iraq since 2003 around 115,000 of civilians have died countless more seriously hurt and maimed for life. Controlled precision drone strikes are a lot safer for both civilian and military personal (http://www.iraqbodycount.org...). Option 2 :Use local security forces to deal with the terrorist camps . If this it worked would be perhaps the better option however Pakistan forces have proven themselves unable to deal with the threat time and time again. A prime example of this was Osama bin Laden. He was living within one mile of a large military academy in Pakistan for nearly a decade the local authorities had either no idea he was living there or they were aware and had no desire to inform the USA. Either way they are clearly not up to the task of dealing with such a large problem. Option 3: do nothing. This in my view is not an option at all. By doing nothing not only will we be sending the wrong message, but also we will be allowing the terrorist a free space to train to go and acquire the necessary skills to bring mass destruction and terror to innocent people. Drones are not the perfect solution but are clearly the best weapon in dealing with terrorist training camps in foreign countries who are otherwise unable to stop such men. Mistakes are made I will not contest that. However using your own figures just under 3000 terrorists have been killed by drone attacks the 9/11 attacks involved only 19 terrorists the London bombings only 4 and the Mumbai attacks 10 men in total 33 terrorist killed nearly 3500 and injuring 7000 people. The fact drone strike have killed 3000 men who"s sole aim in life was to destroy the lives of others demonstrate the effectiveness of the drones. (https://en.wikipedia.org...) ,( http://en.wikipedia.org...) ,( http://en.wikipedia.org...) You say the gains from drone strikes are "" minuscule compared with the long-term damage"" however "" With an average of more than one suicide bombing every week, 35,000 Pakistanis have died since 9/11"" surely taking a strong stance against terrorism w are supporting both the local people and economy. http://www.bbc.co.uk... You also say "" Drone Strikes leads to an arms race"". No the development of drone led to an arms race not the deployment of them therefore your argument is irrelevant to the debate. When the tank was developed by Britten in 1915 other countries started developing them as well. This a natural part of modern warfare. To reiterate regardless if the USA continues to use the drones or not China and Iran will still continue to develop them. You say "" The use of drone strikes create poverty within impacted regions."" Equally terrorism within a region creates poverty. The damage from a drone strike can be repaired in most cases however if a region is a base for terrorism the area can never reach its economic potential meaning it is almost guaranteed to stay in poverty. (http://securipedia.eu...) P.S can you please repost some of your links as the don"t seem to be working in my browser.