Source: AFP/Getty Images
I read an interesting but brief article on the use of UAVs
this evening. The central part of the article concerned the ability of UAVs to
do away with the risks to service personal and questioned whether this is preferred
over deploying boots on the ground.
UAVs conduct a lot of reconnaissance missions that would
otherwise involve risking either pilots or troops conducting ground
reconnaissance. They also allow the ability to strike with out fear of injury
to any service personnel.
However the article does point out that there are people
with issues regarding the use of drones for “targeted assassination” and the
killing of US citizens by US forces without trial etc. I think this is an area
where perhaps UAVs will always have a problem regarding justification. The fact
that they allow targets to be killed/destroyed from a distance and with
relative ease will always be unsettling, however is this really any different
to a guided missile being used from a jet or launched from a naval vessel?
One thing is for certain however and that is they have had
an impact in Afghanistan
and their use is set to continue for the foreseeable future no matter how loud
the dissenting voices get. If given the simple choice of deploying boots on the
ground in a risky operation or using a UAV politicians will always choose the
latter.
Here is a link to the article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9855577/Drones-are-gruesome-but-would-we-prefer-boots-on-the-ground.html
