This house supports the use of drones by the military

In this round, I present my rebuttal. Even if one disagrees with certain military policies involving drones, one can still support the use of drones by the military. You could disagree with missile strikes in Kosovo, but you could still support the use of missiles by the military. I am arguing that the military should be able to use drones due to their inherent advantages – both in military strikes and non-combat purposes (which constitute the majority of drones). Rebuttal to :: Drones have no ability to distinguish between bystanders and targets My opponent argues that drones have no capability to distinguish between bystanders and actual targets because drone pilots must rely on the information provided to them before striking. However, conventional aircraft pilots are subject to the exact same limitations of information prior to deploying missiles or bombs as drone pilots. Further, unlike conventional pilots, drone pilots will have even more information available to them, because they will have often observed and followed their target for days before initiating the strike.[1] Conventional pilots are similarly unable to accept the surrender of a combatant, just as drone pilots would be. The only difference between conventional pilots and drone pilots, in this regard, is that drone pilots have continuous surveillance of the area that is being targeted and can choose to abort or divert the missile if evidence emerges that the target is not correct or civilians are present.[1] This type of evidence is frequently not available to a conventional pilot who is sent to deploy missiles or bombs from miles above. Nor would that information be available when missiles are launched from surface ships or submarines – such as the Tomahawk missile commonly used in the past. Moreover, drone pilots can seek direct advice from their commanding officer, who can view the information and real-time video himself, before deciding to strike – another option not available to conventional pilots that improves the reliability of this form of military strike.[1] Rebuttal to :: Drones break international law and human rights My opponent argues that killing persons who are “outside of combat” from surrendering may break the Geneva Convention. I agree, but my opponent is not arguing against using drones themselves here, he is arguing against the idea of killing combatants who attempt to surrender. He has provided zero evidence as to how often this happens or if it even happens at all, with respect to drones. Again, it is true that an aerial drone cannot accept the immediate surrender of a combatant, but neither can a conventional aircraft. The difference is that an aerial drone can actually see that a combatant has attempted to surrender, and potentially could monitor a surrendered combatant until troops arrive to detain him. A conventional aircraft could not achieve this outcome. In the past, attempting to surrender to an oncoming bomber jet would be a fruitless endeavor – as it would never see you – and you would be blown up anyway. Today, with military drones, there is the possibility that the military can now observe combatants who attempt to surrender and choose to alter their course of action appropriately – potentially improving the morality of war and decreasing unethical casualties.[1] Rebuttal to :: Assassination by drone My opponent argues that troops could attempt to apprehend targets instead of striking, but often such courses of action are not available or would be extremely costly to human lives. Similar arguments for capture could be made in every type of missile strike, but often these attempts would not be feasible. Troops may not be available in the area, allied lives may be lost if such a capture were attempted, and the targets would often die resisting. Consider U.S. Operation Gothic Serpent in Somalia which had the purpose of capturing a Somali warlord, but ultimately failed and cost thousands of civilian lives.[2] One could argue that we should capture enemy combatants in every possible war scenario but the costs to human life in attempting that goal is simply too great. Rebuttal to :: Drones push us in many more wars than we want, harm foreign relations, and are costly My opponent says the low cost of drones removes an important deterrent to war. He points to the use of drone strikes in impoverished countries like Yemen,[3] Somalia[4] and Pakistan[5]. I will not take a position on any particular military policy regarding where to employ drones, because it is not part of this debate. However, to characterize these military activities as war may be misleading, since these governments have given tacit approval for drone strikes by the U.S., zero U.S. troops have died in these countries, and only a couple hundred enemy militants have died in the last year.[6][7] Drones offer a minimally violent method of neutralizing threats and potentially avoiding the need for broader military deployment. Countries like Somalia lack a stable government and are a haven for terrorist operations and camps.[8] These operations must be disrupted and conventional measures like sanctions and diplomacy are ineffective against terrorist groups. Because the Somali government is practically nonexistent and incapable of assisting, allied nations must take their own steps. Prior to drones, the U.S. government would be required to deploy boots-on-the-ground to disrupt these problems –such as Somali Operation Gothic Serpent where thousands of civilian died. Now, with the availability of drones, these threats can be disrupted effectively, saving civilian lives, and without the need to send troops.[9] There is simply no evidence that drones have or will push us into costly, large-scale wars. However, there is good evidence to think that drones might actually prevent the need for broad-scale military deployment. Further, this argument has no relation to attack drones in combat zones like Afghanistan, nor is it an argument against the many other types of drones used by the military for non-combat purposes. Rebuttal to :: We are under no military threat My opponent is correct that first world nations are not under threat of attack from Yemen or Afghanistan, but neither are we at war with them. The drones in Afghanistan and Yemen are used to attack terrorist organizations being harbored within those countries, and not to attack the countries themselves. My opponent states that these countries are crippled and poor, and that our attack on them is abhorrent as a result. But, it is exactly because these countries are so poor and impotent that the U.S. must take action to quell the terrorist groups that grow and hide within their borders, simply because these countries cannot do it themselves.[9] Conclusion As you will notice, my opponent’s arguments solely address attack drones and do not address any other type of drone. He does not present any argument as to why non-combat drones – such as those used for surveillance, reconnaissance, house clearing, soldier recovery, decoys, mobile communications, and explosives detection and triggering – should not be used by the military. Further, he has not shown why attack drones are any different than manned aircraft – with respect to distinguishing targets and accepting enemy surrender. And, I have shown that drones offer a greater ability to discern the correct targets and the potential to divert attacks when an enemy surrenders, something not available with conventional pilots. Because of their many tactical advantages and the lives that are susequently saved, drones should be used by the military. Sources [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com...