Reference no: EM132699648

Question 1.

With technology evolving so rapidly, it makes sense that the United States must incorporate new weapons into its law-enforcement and war efforts. I believe the utilization of drones in war efforts is a good thing, but like all good things, it must have a limit. Whether or not I agree with the fact that drones are a part of American war-fighting doesn't matter because it has already been going on for nearly 20 years. Through the use of drone attacks on terrorists overseas, the United States is able to eliminate threats without expending American lives. However, reports have indicated that a large percentage of those injured or killed by these drones were civilians. Killing civilians is never an acceptable form of war-fighting, and the end outcome can never justify the lives lost. Because America will continue to use drones in war-fighting, it is imperative that we ensure the only targets are those who hold a clear threat to the security of the United States. Of course, if the war has no probable cause, then sending American soldiers or drones overseas is unlawful. I am not suggesting that we do not go to war because sometimes inaction can lead to terrorist attacks domestically. However, I believe the United States should determine whether the attacks are justified before utilizing drones in a way that could breach international law.

If Americans agree that drones should be used internationally in war-fighting efforts to protect our safety, it makes sense that drones should be used domestically for the same reason. If one believes the use of drones in America is a breach of privacy, wouldn't the same apply overseas when it is used on foreign civilians? Every form of military weapon holds a threat, domestically, and internationally, and the United States must determine whether the benefit of drones outweighs the risks. The use of drones in war-efforts can be seen as a good thing because it allows for swift and somewhat efficient strikes while protecting American lives. If used domestically, drones can provide aid during fires or natural disasters without risking the lives of firefighters or law enforcement unnecessarily. Overall, I believe the utilization of drones is necessary to a certain extent, but I do not believe drones should be given the authority to act in any situation without a human directing it. This could lead to catastrophic mistakes both domestically and internationally, and it only serves to hurt the United States in the long run.

Question 2.

A drone or UVA can be summed up to an aircraft which is not controlled by humans. Human don't take part in the flying of drones, but it is controlled from down below by a ground cockpit or ground control systems. It reminds kind of like a toy race car that has a remote control, that is how think of it. I don't know significantly too much about drones, what damages it has caused, or why it is so beneficial to many, but I do know that the ultimate purpose of drones or at least the reason they were created in the begining was for the purpose of effieciency. Humans can only do so much and now that technology has grown higher and has become more powerful it has been easier for humans to use drones in places such as the military aircraft to surviellance what they need to watch and to be able to watch from the drone with no incidents.I feel that drones (at least right now) shouldn't be continued to be used in American-war fighting simply because of like I said before, efficiency. If human being were to fly in the air and take the drones places like back before drones were created, many more lives would be lost because most things drones do are not all that secure to protect the human life. Then again there is the backlash of the drones causing much more damage than harm. I say the drones can stay ONLY if used appropriately and safely. There is no point of having a drone if the end result will be the lives of many. If we can get the drones to operate on a more safe and constructed level that is when we can bring back the drones.