Reflection Paper for a debate on military drones

Anglų refleksija.

One of the many options – it is legitimate for certain cases – principally justified, practically effective BOP

State vs non-state actor – wars no longer conventional – multinational groups with no respect of borders or law of war – least amount of people. Boots on ground not effective against terrorists

POI – civilian deaths – answer – recognize that ground invasions have caused more destruction, Taliban less effective because smth done – Pakistan helps bc effective

EFFICIENCY – target leaders, supplies, resources. Soldiers – worry about killing someone, soldiers possibly captured

Targeting specific people, drones can stay more mobile and active, taking out a leader weakens their position and persuasion – power struggles, internal conflict.

Drones not recognize boundaries because terrorists don’t either – unconventional war

Drones far more accurate, surveillance and second opinions on shooting

Protecting soldiers – administration’s responsibility – lives put on line when drone could have been more useful. Men come back broken.

Drones – fire and death. To those people it’s a threatening mechanism – Washington people desensitized meanwhile.

Not just efficacy – extend – drones are just for mil. Interventions. People of that country. A BETTER AGENT

  • Anglų kalba Refleksijos
  • 2017 m.
  • Anglų
  • Salvijus
  • 4 puslapiai (915 žodžių)
  • Gimnazija
  • Anglų refleksijos
  • Microsoft Word 15 KB
  • Reflection Paper for a debate on military drones
    10 - 2 balsai (-ų)
Reflection Paper for a debate on military drones. (2017 m. Sausio 10 d.). Peržiūrėta 2018 m. Sausio 22 d. 02:41