That the use of drones in warfare should be condemned

'The proliferation of drone warfare not only makes civilian collateral damage more probable, but it also damages the standing of whichever country engages in it in international law, and further degrades the sacrosanct value of the protection of human life indiscriminate air strikes.'

What do I mean by this? As Al Gore pointed out in his film 'An Inconvenient Truth' with the axiom "Conventional technology plus conventional ideology equals predictable consequences, but new technology plus conventional habits lead to dramatically altered consequences.'

In the example, Gore emphasises his point by comparing the consequences of using traditional weapons in warfare compared to the use of nuclear weapons by the US on Japan, and how the fallout from that new technology dramatically altered the world.

Drones are the new technology of our time. The consequences will be dramatically different if we pursue their use.

Drone use is both ineffective an immoral. Why ineffective? For a number of reasons. Primarily because the technology is still developing. With the best will in the world, drone operators have a much poorer view of the scene than the equivalent fighter would have as they are relying on high spectrum imaging from satellites. The imaging, at best, delivers a resolution no higher than you would get on google earth, and from a perspective that offers a large 2D view. How, then, can military strategists discern targets from a Taliban fighter to a man buying groceries? In short, they can't.

A study undertaken by the UN in 2013 indicated that accidental killing of civilians actually outnumbered targeted killing by a ratio of 2:1. 

Furthermore, drones are relatively slow, are highly ineffective in conditions of dense fog/cloud cover, and susceptible to severe weather. How would you feel if US drone technology got into the hands of Al Qaida or ISIS? 

They, are in my opinion, also immoral. The idea of a young man, sat in a dark cubicle surrounded by displays, choosing whether to airstrike a village or not strikes me as a particularly unsavoury tactic. It's literally one step away from a computer game, only with real people, real lives on the line. Our opponents call it dishonourable. Countries such as North Korea, Pakistan and even China have made claims to the effect that shooting down humans using a RC plane from thousands of miles away is little more than cowardice. Hardly a standpoint from which to police the world.

I'll leave you with this thought: in 2006 the then vice-commander of Al Qaida, Alman al-Zawahiri, said of the American Drone programme "I hope they keep using drone strikes in Pakistan. It is the single biggest contributor to our ranks. I can't tell you how many young men come to us with stories of families blown apart whilst they sleep. They are angry. They are perfect for us, and ready for Jihad."

Pro has presented several good points, but I will attempt to dismantle them and show why the use of drones in warfare should not be condemned.

Firstly, using an Al Gore quote to me is not as credible as other politicians. Serving as vice president under, in my opinion, the worst foreign policy administration ever to be. 

During the Rwandan Crisis, an estimated 500,000-1,000,000 tutsi's died due to genocide, but we didn't help. When the Iraq conflict happened, Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack. Twenty three missiles were launched. Sixteen of the twenty three missiles launched hit their target, three hit a residential area killing nine civilians, and four missiles went unaccounted for. That's a 70% hit ratio, which isn't the best.

By this we see that cruise missiles are not the answer..

While making the argument that drones make civilian collateral damage more probable, we allow for fewer U.S. troops to be K.I.A. This is very important, because what Pro is saying is that American lives are not important...

In 2009, during Operation Enduring Freedom, there was a 60.98% IED fatality rate(this could be prevented by not having troops on the ground), and 452 U.S. troops died from IEDs. Also during Operation Enduring Freedom, 3,506 Troops died over the course of 14 years. 

During the Vietnam War, over 58,220 troops died in 20 years, imagine having drone strikes to protect them.

I am assuming given the fact that you are arguing that troops on the ground would be better makes me assume you aren't in the military or do not have any family members in the military. Having a family member in battle or K.I.A is a very hard time for the family members...

I'm also assuming you don't know anything about how much legal preceding they have to go through just to do a drone strike on someone. The United States have many lawyers constantly reviewing facts, legality, and such to confirm it is the right person they are targeting. What about the movie "Lone Survivor"? 3 navy seals died because they couldn't get "confirmation" that the person was a terrorist.. 

Are 3 American lives worth killing 1 terrorrist  the "honorable way"?

We have thousands of CIA operatives tasked to finding terrorists, tracking them, and identifying them. 

If we are worried about a terrorist group getting drone technology, we have our focuses in the wrong area. They have spies, they know when we are airdropping, supplying, or attacking with troops. Think about Black Hawk Down, over 18 people died and 73 were wounded, because they knew when we were coming. I cannot stress this enough, but we cannot justify sacrificing troops for killing one terrorist.

Our opponents calling us "dishonorable" and us listening to them is ridiculous. Almost every country you listed is a communist nation, and every communist nation hates us.. Communist nations fear us, because we are the World Great, we are the super country. 

They call us "dishonorable" and yet they are killing their own citizens for not being a communist, not following the country religion, or for other reasons. That is what i believe dishonorable to be. We are too focused on impressing, and being compassionate to everyone, but we need to show dominance.

That quote from the vice commander al Qaida is also not credible. The enemy will say and do anything to get you to do the opposite. What if he said, we would stop if the U.S. didn't fight, would they really mean it?? Oh, and tell me how Al Qaida is doing currently, are they the biggest terror group out there still?

Over 1.3 million American Troops have died due to war over the past 200 years. You cannot say that this is not a lot. 6,500 troops a year for 200 years.. 

I do not believe and nor should you that putting American Troops on the line over drones is not right, and I know that if you ever got drafted in the military, that you would change your mind about drone strikes..

A lot of modern America seems to be based on fear. From my perspective, it seems everything from gun ownership to immigration to foreign policy is based on people's fears related to the unknown threat, in these cases 'other people with guns', 'foreigners' and 'ISIS' respectively.

Policies similarly based on fear are never going to make sense under the scrutiny of logic and strategic reasoning, and so it is with drones.

If you're reading this from the US, ask yourself this question;- do you feel safer in your own country, knowing drones equipped with US-made bombs are systematically destroying people's lives on the other side of the world? And all in the name of 'democracy' and 'freedom.'

As you may have surmised from my arguments, much of my opposition with drones relate to the wider issue of foreign policy. The question could have easily been relating to other instruments of war, and many of my core objections would still stand. As we stare towards the possibility that a bigoted racist such a Donald Trump could soon gain the most powerful office in the world, we surely all need to question the role which our governments play on the global stage. Many people lauded the bombing of Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, despite the thousands of civilians who died as a result. Would the world have stood by if the Afghani army had levelled US towns to the ground in the hunt for 1 terrorists? Of course not, but somehow the west, and in particular the US, we have a tendency to think we hold moral superiority over others, and that it is our duty to police the rest of the world. Drones are just the latest tool in the arsenal used to propagate that notion.

Airstrikes are always indiscriminate to the point of view of those on the ground. Drones offer little difference. We can track the rise of groups like ISIS in direct proportion to airstrikes and bombing campaigns, and the ratio is clear. When drone strikes increase, so too do the ranks of ISIS. The reverse is similarly true. 

I don't want to repeat my arguments from the first round, so i'll conclude with this.