The development of drones has been a vital advancement for U.S.
military purposes. It allows an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to attack a
specific terrorist location quietly, effectively, and is minimally violent to surrounding
areas.
Drone strikes have come under criticism, however, due to the
documented loss of civilian lives as a result of errant attacks or collateral damage. In our view, UAVs
are the most effective weapon to date at killing specific threats to the U.S.
without causing overreaching harm that other methods would inevitably lead to.
The argument that drone strikes can kill innocent people and
thus should be eliminated as a military tactic entirely simply doesn’t hold
water when analyzed reasonably.
Times of conflict lead to military engagement between two or
more sides. When this happens, violence and death are inevitable. With any form
of military involvement, there is a significant threat of the loss of civilian
lives in the fray of battle. Opponents of drone strikes have cried that the
loss of innocent lives, famously that of a pregnant woman and three children in
a bus strike in September of 2012, is proof enough that UAVs are not safe
enough for use.