How does on put ethics and war in the same sentence. More effective with less collateral damage? Yes.
Well.the terrorists targeted had been and were planning to kill many many more people than that U.S.drone did. It is war and "all is fair in love and war" I would like to know how they work. Talk about surgical strike .... amazing.
I agree that the technology is amazing... but justifying it as saving lives I feel is likely mere rhetoric, but its not very often true I'm afraid. depending on your sources the drone attacks alone have killed somewhere from 70% to 120% the number of people than have died fighting for the coalition forces in Afghanistan... /just the drone attacks/ - this doesn't exactly address your point but I find it an interesting comparison.
But the intent of the the terrorist has been and would have been to kill many many more.Would that Mohammad Atta had been droned.
Less ethical than equally armed opponents dueling with pistols or swords... <br />
More ethical than carpet bombing ever square inch within a boarder to kill a specific person.
According to the ones who are selling them :~)
The key word that everybody seems to be missing is DRONE. These are not just missiles being lobbed in the general direction of the intended target. Rather, they are armed with cameras, radar and sophisticated guidance systems to accurately destroy their intended target--within INCHES. Very little collateral damage is done, unless the intended target has chosen to blend in with civilians (a cowardly defense, in my book).<br />
Add to this that the most recent, er, victims of today's drone attack in Pakistan were crossing the border into Afghanistan, taking out their targets, and retreating back to Pakistan, and it becomes obvious that the ONLY way to dispose of these terrorists is by remote tactics. (Never mind that Pakistan had agreed to aid the US in the capture of said terrorists, and has allowed their presence in Pakistan anyway!)<br />
When a group of fundamentalists swears death upon a society, and begins to carry it out by taking out THOUSANDS in FOUR attacks in ONE DAY (i.e. 9/11/2001), the time to act has come. In other words, THEY started it--not US!<br />
But that's just me...
more ethical than the manned attacks of 911, at least they are used in known war and conflict scenarios, instead of blindsiding and massive public deaths... their use to minimize damage to the intended bad guys gives them a lot of positive spin. when bubba and his whizkid son learn to build their own, though, look out... if your neighbor's radio controlled plane has a hard time getting off the ground, be careful what it might be carrying and if it is headed your way.
I'm going to save my answer till they start using them to track and kill US citizens....several State and County governments are buying up the old military drones in an effort to fight crime...only thing is when the new gun control laws begin, they will have many people unwilling to give up the right to protect themselves and the drones will be used to kill said terrorist...
Absolutely. The jihadists can't plant IED's up in the air, the targets are carefully selected, the results are way good...all this at a very low expense. One could say, alot of bang for the buck!
There is a horrific amount of collateral damage, including women and children. I find the argument about IEDs hard to swallow - just look at the numbers involved - IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan have killed in total roughly the same number of /soldiers/ as US drones have killed /people/ in Pakistan alone - which is a third party - as much as they may be connected there isn't even an open declaration of war and these attacks are therefore illegal by international law...
Our foe is not uniformed servicemen fighting for a recognozed nation. They are irregulars, guerrillas & above all else, terrorists. My comment about the IED's was that the drones are immune from these. Oh, I forgot to mention, drones are safe from suicide bombers who have no concern regarding collateral damage. As the great President Bush stated in 2001, we'll bring terrorists to justice or take it to them.
Wait till the 30,000 drones scheduled to fill American skies are launched, then ask.
There is an excellent air force patrolling to prevent that ,I presume.
You presume wrong. Obama wants them and signed the little publicized law authorizing them. I'm not saying they will attack anything but our privacy - at first - but they will be there by 2020, sheeple!!
I can be wrong...thats ok.
Who is "right" isn't the concern. The despicable spying planned for us should be. Probably just made my way onto another watch list. :(
Only if they are done by a president that has a D after their name. According to the loonly left.
The word attack does not usually carry any connotation with ethical
All is fair in love and war!
I think Bill Hicks put it well when he asked why we can't use the same technology to shoot food at hungry people...<br />
Its not the drones that are unethical its the wars, the colossal cost in human life and resources that could be spent bettering ourselves instead of destroying each other.<br />
I believe the US fights unjust wars of aggression - with political motive as the primary force at work - the humanitarian benefits are sadly, just a convenient side effect.
It all depends on who's piloting the drone
No one pilots drones they are computer guided
It all depends on who's programming the drone
Are most things in our society?
Are any attacks ethical, would be the first question.
Just war, hm... It reffers to a situation when an army is attacking Your country. Then You can counter attack, or perhaps attack preventivelly, beffore they crose the border. That is a VERY different situation.
There is no question sometimes - if you see a woman being raped you fight off the attacker right?
Hm, hm, and what it has to do with US military involvment in foreign civil wars? Protecting raped ladys perhaps?!