The United State's Use of Drone Warfare does more Harm than Good

Fantastic. I will begin with my contentions. Please do not refute them until round two.1. Drone warfare terrorizes and murders innocent civiliansWaleed Shiraz says that his mother has been extremely depressed since the drones hit. Sadullah Wazir says that a lot of people have been mentally affected and developed psychological illnesses. He says that the drones make kids cry all the time. Dawood Ishaq, a father of four young children was going to work when a drone targeted a car and blew it up. The driver and him lost their legs. Adil Hasmi had his house destroyed by a drone strike. He says that he was extremely sad, because normally a house costs one million rupees, while he doesn’t have 5,000 rupees. The list of people who have been negatively affected by drone warfare goes on and on. It isn’t fair to innocent civilians, that they have to put up with bombs flying over their head day in and day out. Would anybody here like to live in a world where you wake up and are afraid to go outside? This is what thousands of Pakistani citizens have to deal with every day, and they have suffered numerous mental and physical injuries because of it [1].[1]www.livingunderdrones.org2. Drone warfare is unethicala. It closely resembles a video game. It belittles war into an first person shooter showdown, but with real collateral damage.b. It poses no risk to the agressor. War is unethical if the attacker partakes in no risk when shooting dozens of people.c. It lowers morale and detracts from war comradery and spirit. "Deploying forward with like-minded colleagues, dressing in uniform and living in austere conditions give military forces identity and a sense of belonging. Both are good for military morale and, therefore, the achievement of military objectives. Military commanders will need to devise means of replicating this collective morale for the RCW warrior, who may never physically meet his contemporaries in combat."[3]A certain amount of collateral damage has always been accepted in the rough-and-tumble of the battlefield, but direct attacks on civilian sites, even if they have been commandeered for military use, causes queasiness in thoughtful soldiers. If they have not been so commandeered, attacks on such sites may constitute war crimes [2].[2] www.economist.com/node/15814399?story_id=15814399&CFID=122754729&CFTOKEN=98634634 [3]http://www.japcc.de...3. Drones are innefficient2% of the people who were killed by drone warfare attacks were actually targets. The United States defines their use of drones as “surgically precise and effective”, with a way to distinguish between innocent civilians and al Qaeda terrorists. Clearly, this is false, and I have studies backing me up. According to an nine month investigation done by Stanford, the harms of drone warfare are absolutely devastating to the communities that are affected by these drones. 60 people, in eight years of drone warfare in Pakistan, were killed that were meant to be killed. Around 2500 were innocent. Over one hundred were children.4. Drones are easily hackableCollege Students at the University of Texas hacked in to drones with only $1000 [4]. If college students with this low of a budget can take over these $80,000 machines, then imagine what Iranians and Pakistanians can do. In fact, don't imagine, I'll tell you. Iraqi militants have used $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live drone feeds from America's drones [5]. In another incident, Iranians captured and hijacked the RQ-170 sentinel and used it for their own militia [6].[4]http://rt.com...;[5]http://online.wsj.com...[6]http://www.bbc.co.uk...;