Drones are unmanned aerial vehicles deployed by U.S. defense and intelligence agencies to collect data and strike suspected enemy targets. The first known U.S. strike was the 2002 killing of al-Qaeda operative Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi in Yemen. Between 2022 and 2020 the U.S. killed between 9,000 and 18,000 enemy combatants and 900-2200 civilians with drone strikes. Opponents of drone strikes have long contended strikes that kill civilians essentially serve as a recruiting poster for terrorist groups. In 2010, a man named Faisal Shahzad tried and failed to bomb Times Square in New York City. Later, Shahzad cited US drone strikes as his motivation for the failed bombing. Proponents of drone strikes argue that they can kill high value w=enemy targets without putting soldiers into combat.
@ISIDEWITH12yrs12Y
Yes
@9FMPZZ212mos12MO
If the evidence is enough, no foreign suspected terrorist should be able to fight the charges anyways, and would be sentenced to death one way or the other.
@9FR3JWRRepublican12mos12MO
using drones to spy will get you caught due to them being noisy and if they look up they will notice something in the sky
@9FZ88JG12mos12MO
Most times we have killed suspected terrorists, we have been right. Granted some civilians have been killed, which is regretable, but then again a high valued target was eliminated, which could have caused more deaths to civilians within not only our country, but their own as well.
@ISIDEWITH12yrs12Y
No
@9F5BMBCIndependent1yr1Y
If we have a chance to stop a threat to American people and the country this is in gives permission we should stop the threat.
@9FCJQ5F1yr1Y
But then you have a very grey line of what is and what isn’t a threat. We’ve proved ourselves unable to manage the direction that drone warfare can lead to if not competently handled. And not only that, our habit of risking the chances of killing the wrong people in the name of fighting terror has happened a ridiculous amount of times with evidence thanks to Julian Assange who is behind bars and he is behind bars because there is no accountability for the lives lost and that’s what brought me to the conclusion that NO, we should not kill “suspected terrosist” in a foreign country.
While the concern about the grey line of threat identification is valid, it is also important to consider the advancements in technology that have improved precision and accuracy. A prime example is the development of artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms, which have greatly improved not only the identification of threats but also the reduction of collateral damage. Furthermore, international law and treaties can be revisited to ensure more stringent regulations and accountability in drone usage. As for Julian Assange, his situation is quite complex and cannot be solely attributed to drone warfare. So, how do we strike a balance between national security and ethical considerations in your view?
@passerby922wks2W
"Suspected" doesn't cut it.
@ISIDEWITH12yrs12Y
No, the military has no right to do so without a Congressional declaration of war
@9FNNDC812mos12MO
I think there should be no reason why we cannot use military drones. Regardless of whether we want to start a war or not having that upper hand on the opposing enemy is the best thing for us.
@9FMPZZ212mos12MO
I think that the military should actively use more drones to counter insurgencies in friendly nations.
@ISIDEWITH12yrs12Y
Yes, the U.S. needs to use all means necessary to combat terrorism
@9FZ836312mos12MO
would you be fine with having drones watching your every move too? how do we know you aren't a terrorist as well?
@ISIDEWITH11yrs11Y
No, only to gather intelligence, not to kill suspected terrorists
@9FMPZZ212mos12MO
Drones typically do not have guns, therefore, are safe for the most part, only gathering intelligence in most cases, but if there is undeniable evidence, then a person should be killed.
@9FZ88JG12mos12MO
I feel with the right amount of information, we should be able to send troops in order to kill a suspected. Again, only with the right amount of information.
@9G69SN311mos11MO
Gathering evidence using drones to spy is a shady way of doing business, it seems unethical and would make a bad impression of our American values
@ISIDEWITH11yrs11Y
Yes, but only with permission from the country in question
@9G8L94D11mos11MO
If a country doesn't want to be monitored by the U.S. or are hiding something from the U.S. then of course that country is going to say no to a drone monitoring them.
@9G69SN311mos11MO
If the country in question agrees and gives us permission to do something, we can successfully remove/deal with the leader who is an issue to us without offending or aggravating an entire country or group of people.
Yes but ideally with permission from the country in question.
@9HB5MKV10mos10MO
Absolutely to gather intelligence. Assassinations should be reserved solely for confirmed terrorists with proof that they have or will attack our nation or an ally
Absolutely to gather intelligence. Assassination should be reserved for undeniably confirmed terrorists
@5923DDK4yrs4Y
We are killing innocents. We are destroying hospitals by mistake. Sometimes I think about the panic our citizenry would fly into if other nations started using killer drones on us. We would be outraged. And yet here we are, doing this very thing to them.
@9GN5KWP11mos11MO
Absolutely to gather intelligence, but assassinations should be permitted only for confirmed, not simply suspected, terrorists
No, this is a violation of these country’s sovereignty as well as a violation of international law.
@9JW87V67mos7MO
Absolutely for gathering intelligence. Assassinations should be reserved for confirmed terrorists that are imminent threats to the country
@9L74FFC6mos6MO
Absolutely to gather intelligence, but reserve assassinations for confirmed terrorists who have or will attack our nation or that of an ally
@9L4Z23BIndependent 6mos6MO
The military can gather intelligence, however they cannot kill terrorists without Congressional approval or a declaration of war
@9K2DFHN7mos7MO
Yes to gather intelligence, but no to killing suspected terrorists unless they are highly proven they are a terrorist.
@979XN3F2yrs2Y
Yes, but only if there is no risk of any civilian casualties
@58NVHL84yrs4Y
Isn't this exactly why we have secret spy agencies?
@9D22FQZ1yr1Y
Yes and nuke china if they try to start a war with us
@9DX79WD1yr1Y
No, and we should not be fighting so-called terrorists outside our border.
@9D84DNWIndependent1yr1Y
Yes but only if suspected terrorists have enough evidence stacked up against them and should be given a second look before being shot
@9D74KY61yr1Y
Yes, Over any hostile nation but with permission from allies.
@9D6FQVQ 1yr1Y
No, if they are Suspected Terrorists, and not Proven terrorists. There needs to be intelligence that is beyond doubt that targeted individuals are terrorists, and have a record of offenses to the U.S. and its citizens.
Yes but only in those countries which have categorically refused the United States’ efforts to comply with their sovereignty whilst eliminating a threat.
@9TLHH3LIndependent 3 days3D
Only in the case of our country having been attacked and we have tracked the terrorist to an area in a specific country. In the case of receiving intelligence reporting regarding a possible terrorist - we should have an agreement with that country's government first.
No but the military should not commission any authorization for drone surveillance or strikes without Joint Chiefs permission from Congress and President
@9TGDV7X7 days7D
Yes, only to gather intelligence. To kill suspected terrorists requires Congressional approval, which can be given to all missions, and permission from the country
@9TF5ZW91wk1W
Yes, but only for intelligence. Drive strikes should only be used for highest level targets with multiple levels of verification that target is there and collateral damage is minimal
@9TD22YD1wk1W
Yes, But only if they aren't gaining intelligence to do bad things to other countries (ex: depends on the kind of intelligence)
@9TBB66GIndependent1wk1W
There must be proven documentation of a specific act of terrorism committed by said individual prior to executing such an operation.
@9T6J5XJ2wks2W
Yes, but only if we know for certain the suspected terrorist is one and with minimal civilian casualties.
@9SXBF25 3wks3W
Yes, but only if we can confirm with reasonable doubt that they have the intention to injure US citizens.
@9STJ7Q43wks3W
People need to stop killing each other, but we need to stop being involved in the wars of others. We need to focus on taking care of the countless issues we have in our own country!
@9SFQBF54wks4W
This depends entirely upon whom we're monitoring and what their role is in terms of terrorist activity.
@9S9Q372Progressive1mo1MO
We should only be gaining intelligence. If we need to kill terrorists, smaller groups need to catch them on the ground to prevent mass casualties.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
