EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Use of Drones in Warfare

< Return to subforum
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jun 24 2015 1:11 PM
I figured a debate would be started on this sooner than later, but it seems not. I'll just make a thread for it.
Should Drones be a legitimate weapon of war?

Oh, and if you are one of the people who don't believe in war, don't argue that in the thread, because you aren't going to end wars, but maybe your opinion on what weapons are used in war will have some impact.
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jun 24 2015 1:41 PM
Blackflag: I don't see why they shouldn't be. Better that people leaning back in comfy chairs have the drones fight for them than sending guys out onto fields to get their heads blown off.
nzlockie
By nzlockie | Jun 24 2015 4:22 PM
I don't think they should be. Disengaging humans from death and destruction is a mistake.

The impact a violent action has on the person committing the violent act is a price that needs to be paid so that we never forget that war is a last resort.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jun 24 2015 4:30 PM
nzlockie: So you want to ban drones because you believe a killer should have to see the man he has killed? Do you think we should condemn the use of planes, artillery, and ships in war as well?
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jun 24 2015 4:34 PM
Dassault Papillon: Yes, I agree. Moreso I think they provide a technological advantage which can be crutial in times of war. One of the misconceptions is that drones are the only thing that can blow people up from the sky. Not true. Most drones do not even have missles attached to them, another misconception. They spot targets from the sky and mark them for artillery or airstrikes.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jun 24 2015 4:37 PM
Many US helicopters are now outfitted with UAV's. They stabilize the helicopter and drop a UAV, which flies automatically under the coordinates of the UAV pilot, usually also the heli's copilot. They send the UAV forward, it picks up targets, they send the heli in to take out the enemy.
nzlockie
By nzlockie | Jun 24 2015 5:33 PM
Blackflag: Yes, pretty much.

In a lot of ways, it's the most humane way to kill someone.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jun 24 2015 5:52 PM
nzlockie: Superior military technology can end wars faster. Wars would last like a decade if we resolved them all by throwing men at each other.
More life would be wasted for the sake of "seeing the guy being killed." War is war. For the most part you want to do whatever it takes to win. There are limits to how far one should go in wartime, but the use of far-ranged weaponry isn't a barrier I would accept.
nzlockie
By nzlockie | Jun 24 2015 6:12 PM
Blackflag: History disagrees with you.

Compare the average casualty numbers of wars with only hand to hand combats to those that used ranged weapons.

And logically, why would making killing easier and more efficient ever lead to LESS casualties?
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jun 24 2015 6:24 PM
nzlockie: I am not talking about hand to hand combat, but rather firearms vs artillery/planes/ships

I did look at history though. If the Nazis didn't use their fancy new luftwaffe fighters and panzer divisions, how long and bloody do you think the Invasion of France would of been? If the Soviets hadn't used their new AT weapons at Kursk, how much longer would the Nazi reign of terror of been prolonged?

Also, your guesstimate on hand to hand vs ranged weapon casualties is wrong. The bloodiest wars have been hand to hand, and that is ignoring the fact that the populations were a tenth of the size of what they are today