by Daniel Goure
Reaction Essay
January 13th, 2012
Daniel Goure argues that if drones are making warfare more deadly, it’s certainly not showing up in the aggregate numbers. Casualties and warfare itself have declined substantially in recent years—and, he suggests, drones might be one part of the reason why. Drones remain a small part of our overall military forces to date. They are overwhelmingly used for nonviolent purposes such as surveillance. When they do exert deadly force, they often accomplish objectives that would have been impossible without them, barring a full-scale invasion. Legitimate concerns do exist over specific acts perpetrated via drone technology, but there is at least a plausible case that drones in general are making warfare less deadly, not more.
Read: Drones and the Changing Nature of Warfare: Hold the Presses!
by Benjamin Wittes and Ritika Singh
Reaction Essay
January 11th, 2012
Benjamin Wittes and Ritika Singh argue that drones certainly do increase the distance at which deadly force can be delivered. In this they resemble the large majority of weapons that have ever been developed. Humanitarians, they add, should welcome drones’ precision, which makes possible a new level of caution in avoiding civilian bystanders. They conclude that the question is not whether the United States can prevent drones from proliferating. It is whether the United States will lead or follow in this new field of military technology.
Learn more about the Cato Institute:
Stay up-to-date daily on issues at the Cato Institute:
Editor: Jason Kuznicki
Senior Editor: Gene Healy
Cato Unbound is powered by WordPress Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).