Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Remote-control warfare

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 09:04, 17 April 2010 (edit)
Lenkahabetinova (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 09:14, 17 April 2010 (edit)
Lenkahabetinova (Talk | contribs)
(Pro)
Next diff →
Line 48: Line 48:
*'''They are useful for assassinations.''' "On February 17th [2010], for example, Sheikh Mansoor, an al-Qaeda leader in the Pakistani district of North Waziristan, was killed by a drone-borne Hellfire." [http://www.economist.com/science-technology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15814399&CFID=122754729&CFTOKEN=98634634 Economist, "Droning on", April 2010] *'''They are useful for assassinations.''' "On February 17th [2010], for example, Sheikh Mansoor, an al-Qaeda leader in the Pakistani district of North Waziristan, was killed by a drone-borne Hellfire." [http://www.economist.com/science-technology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15814399&CFID=122754729&CFTOKEN=98634634 Economist, "Droning on", April 2010]
- +*'''Pilotless planes promise to be cheaper to make and run than conventional fighter jets.''' [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8488269.stm BBC News, "How unmanned drones are changing modern warfare", by Chris Bowlby, February 2010]
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "Pro" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em;"| |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "Pro" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em;"|
- 
====Con==== ====Con====
*'''They are counterproductive.''' Errors, such as accidental bombing of civilian sites, "are not only tragic, but also counterproductive. Sympathetic local politicians will be embarrassed and previously neutral non-combatants may take the enemy's side." [http://www.economist.com/science-technology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15814399&CFID=122754729&CFTOKEN=98634634 The Economist, "Droning on", April 2010] *'''They are counterproductive.''' Errors, such as accidental bombing of civilian sites, "are not only tragic, but also counterproductive. Sympathetic local politicians will be embarrassed and previously neutral non-combatants may take the enemy's side." [http://www.economist.com/science-technology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15814399&CFID=122754729&CFTOKEN=98634634 The Economist, "Droning on", April 2010]

Revision as of 09:14, 17 April 2010

What are the pros and cons of drone operations?

Contents

Background and Context of Debate:

Ethics: Can pilotless airplanes be morally justified?

Pro


Con

  • Killing civilians. Attacks on civilian sites (if they had not been so commandeered) "may constitute war crimes. (...) On June 23rd 2009, for example, an attack on a funeral in South Waziristan killed 80 non-combatants." The Economist, "Droning on", April 2010
  • Drone operations resemble warfare video games. "... the operators of drones, often on the other side of the world, are far removed from the sight, sound and smell of the battlefield. They may make decisions to attack that a commander on the ground might not, treating warfare as a video game." The Economist, "Droning on", April 2010

Efficiency: Are drone operations crucial for military success?

Pro

  • They are useful for assassinations. "On February 17th [2010], for example, Sheikh Mansoor, an al-Qaeda leader in the Pakistani district of North Waziristan, was killed by a drone-borne Hellfire." Economist, "Droning on", April 2010

Con

  • They are counterproductive. Errors, such as accidental bombing of civilian sites, "are not only tragic, but also counterproductive. Sympathetic local politicians will be embarrassed and previously neutral non-combatants may take the enemy's side." The Economist, "Droning on", April 2010


Write Subquestion here...

Pro

Click "edit" and write arguments here





Con

Click "edit" and write arguments here





See also

External links and resources:

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.