Today the use of drones is expanding to every corner of our lives from military, weather, farming, law enforcement (Epatko). John Deere is even producing an autonomous mower that can automatically mow your lawn every period of time (John Deere). There are also times when drones had done bad things like one crashed into the white house (Michael). There was also a time when a drone targeted 41 people but had killed 1,147 people (Ackerman).
The question I ask is if military drone are good or not? I have an interest in drones because I have always been fascinated by technology, military technology, and programming. My interest in technology comes from a background of always being around computers. I have an interest in military technology because I have lots of family that would work on nuclear weapons during the cold war and military technology is on the bleeding edge of our engineering capacity. Finally I have an interest in programming because I like technology and I have a subliminal interest in it.
To determine if military drones are good or not, I must first fit in all the factors into an objective model. I will use a basic game theory equation to determine if they are a good investment by society. I must find the benefits of drones and weigh them against the opportunity costs. Numerical values in a literal equation might be hard to create for the value of a killed terrorist for example. Because of this I will generalize the values or I will use average values.
According to Pro Con drones have “killed upwards of 3,500 militants, including dozens of high-level commanders”. According to Pro Con when people get killed, innocent or guilty, friends and family will join the terrorist movements against the United States. They said that it is also cheaper than using a manned crew to do the attacks but typically the targets that are killed are not very important. Accountability is also an issue because people are less directly involved in using the drones. Another big issue is that sometimes a drone will kill a target that is not a terrorist and is really a bystander (Pro Con). According to the United States Army War College drone have been effective in fighting terrorist groups in Afghanistan and Iraq, and military from Libya. The purpose is to create fear in these malicious groups of the lack of certainty being that a drone can kill somebody at any time. The college also explains that its first use in 2002 successfully killed a head Al-Qae-Da leader. A benefit of drone use is that the United States doesn’t have to send any forces over to an area. This means that there is less risk of American casualties and less monetary cost (Walsh). According to U.S. News, “Drones are losing some of their luster as the silver bullet for attacking terrorist threats”. There are several problems with the use of drones including intelligence gained, and the way other countries react. They cannot collect intelligence when they take out a target like a squad of soldiers on the ground can. The only function they can do is surveillance with a camera and kill the target but they cannot land and scan for clues such as laptops, maps, documents, captured soldiers (Robinson). It was stated by Former Gen. Stanley McChrystal in the article that he was able to capture a high end terrorist leader from a human source that a drone wouldn’t have access to otherwise (McChrystal). Another problem that exists is that if other countries used drones to attack targets in other countries the United States wouldn’t be able to stop them on moral grounds. Many countries also view drones as a violation to their sovereignty because when a drone flies into their country they view it as equivalent to soldiers entering their territory (Robinson). According to Foreign Affairs, “U.S. drones have killed an estimated 3,300 al Qaeda, Taliban, and other jihadist operatives in Pakistan and Yemen”. Fifty senior leader were also killed meaning that the head of the terrorist groups will be filled with less experienced leaders. Drones also make it impossible for members of these militant groups to use electronic devices that can be detected. They can’t go in the open either or they may be killed. This according to Foreign Affairs makes the terrorist groups command structure less valuable because the top can’t communicate with the bottom. The article claimed that better results are given when soldiers can enter and interrogate the criminal and search for evidence but this can be dangerous in unstable countries like Pakistan or Yemen (Byman).
I agree with most of the research I have found on the topic. I have learned specific reasons why drones are useful and why they can be bad. I had already known that drones have killed civilians but they have also killed thousands of militants and senior commanders. It’s hard to think about civilian deaths because it can be very easy to be ethnocentric. Comparing American culture to dangerous areas such as Pakistan only gives the impression that allot of people are part of the terrorist cause even civilians. Though if a report came out that Americans were killed in the United States due to a drone things would be viewed differently on a public scale.. The greatest cost I think is that people are joining different terrorist groups because of the drones and that civilians are dying because of the drones. This opportunity cost has to be compared by the value of zero risk for American soldiers and a low economic cost. Also noting that the drones have killed many senior members as well. These sources have shown me very clearly the pros and cons to determine in a game theory equation if the drones are good or bad.
My opinion originally was that drone us is good and the research I have found supports this idea but not in all cases. In a game theory equation we have to weigh the pros and cons of each side of the case. On the pro side drones are cheap economically, no Americans are in danger, drones have been effective in killing many terrorist and militants, and they break down the command structure. On the con side they don’t provide as much intelligence as a team on the ground and a full investigation of an area. They can kill civilians units by mistake even if it just locks onto the terrorist. They spur political tension when used and can cause terrorist to join their cause. There is also less accountability when using drones vs using soldiers. To conclude from this if there are terrorist in a more civilized area or nation then drones are bad because the risk of Americans being harmed is low. In that case we would not be saving any American lives but possibly endangering civilians and losing intelligence we could have gained. If in an unstable region of the world like Pakistan drones are good because the risk of Americans being harmed is extremely high. This high risk of Americans being killed neglects any value of the intelligence gained from a possible raid on a terrorist compound. Also if the area is unstable then civilians casualties might be already high so that makes the possibility of a drone killing a civilian more of a moot point. To summarize, the factors that determine whether or not drones are good or bad to use are not static. Like any government policy there is a place to use them and places not to use them. If there were domestic terrorist in Canada then drones would be bad because they might accidently kill some Canadians and the risk of counter terrorist being killed is far lower than in Iraq for example. A few question have opened though through this research. Today when we talk about military drones we are talking about Ariel drones. These main factors will change in the future once we have ground drones or robots than can move in on a compound like a ground team. If these robots can conduct research or at least bring back things like captured militants, laptops, cell phones, papers then the equation will change. Also ground drones might be safer for civilians because instead of firing rockets onto a public area they will be using personal firearms. In today’s military a mix of Ariel drones and ground soldiers is optimal to get the best outcome with the least risk but in tomorrow’s military things will be different. A mix of Ariel drones for air support and ground drones for sweeping an area will be optimal. This may be good to have a military with no casualties but there are some troubling consequences of such a conclusion. How much accountability will a government that uses this technology have if it doesn’t need to send any people in? Will pure production of robots account for the size of an army? What role will humans play in future wars? As support, production and command of the military? Finally what incentive will there be to not go to war if the only cost of a war is economic from the resources it takes to manufacture the drones?
Walsh, James Igoe. The Effectiveness of Drone Strikes in Counterinsurgency and Counterterrorism Campaigns. Carlisle Barracks: United States Army War College, 2013. The Effectiveness of Drone Strikes in Counterinsurgency. United States Army War College, Sept. 2013. Web. 10 Apr. 2015. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1167.pdf.
"Drones - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. Pro Con, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2015. http://drones.procon.org/.
Ackerman, Spencer. "41 Men Targeted but 1,147 People Killed: US Drone Strikes – the Facts on the Ground." 41 Men Targeted but 1,147 People Killed: US Drone Strikes. The Guardian, 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 4 Apr. 2015. .
Michael. "White House Drone Crash Described as a U.S. Worker’s Drunken Lark." The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 Jan. 2015. Web. 10 Apr. 2015.
Epatko, Larisa. "How Are Drones Used in the U.S.?" PBS. PBS, 18 Apr. 2013. Web. 10 Apr. 2015.
"Tango E5." John Deere Autonomous Mower. John Deer, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2015.
Ackerman, Specner. "41 Men Targeted but 1,147 People Killed: US Drone Strikes – the Facts on the Ground." 41 Men Targeted but 1,147 People Killed: US Drone Strikes. The Guardian, 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 4 Apr. 2015. .
Robinson, Linda. "The Downside of Drones." US News. U.S.News & World Report, 31 Oct. 2013. Web. 12 Apr. 2015. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/10/31/drone-strikes-arent-always-the-most-effective-counterterrorism-measure.
Byman, Daniel. "Why Drones Work." Global. Foreign Affairs, July-Aug. 2013. Web. 12 Apr. 2015. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139453/daniel-byman/why-drones-work.