What was made most
apparent in the final readings for the class was information and how vital it
is for the future of drone warfare. From statistics regarding civilian
casualties to information regarding how vetted the targets were before being
killed by the drones, all existing information seems to have a bias of some
kind. For these reasons, it appears to be strange that anyone would be able to
take a strong stance either way on drone strikes when no clear statistics
regarding drone warfare seem to exist. The US may claim that transparency might
interfere with the effectiveness of their drone use in warfare might be
compromised if more information is released, but the US must be willing to make
certain sacrifices if they do not wish for the approval ratings of drone
strikes to continue to decrease.
In the “Don’t Fear the Reaper” piece, it was interesting that many of the misconceptions were considered misconceptions largely because they did not have any statistics or studies to back up with claims. However, no studies existed to actually claim that they were not true either. Yes, Carpenter did have some other (albeit minor) points in addition to the lack of studies to cast doubt on fears regarding drone warfare, but none of them really built any confidence. Not enough studies have been done on the impacts of drones on warfare and (as the readings have suggested) there is no reliable source on the deaths of noncombatants. Really, it is difficult to take a stance on drone warfare that is not conceptual instead of one actually based on solid statistics.
Though such statistics might be greatly needed, the main obstacle that stands in the way is the US government itself. It has been discussed that transparency could reduce the effectiveness of the US’ drone strikes. However, in order for the population of the US to even be comfortable with the continuance of drone warfare, statistics must be made known and drone warfare must become more transparent. If drone warfare is as effective as the government says it is, the population might be more comfortable with its use after more reliable studies have been release that suggest so.
In the “Don’t Fear the Reaper” piece, it was interesting that many of the misconceptions were considered misconceptions largely because they did not have any statistics or studies to back up with claims. However, no studies existed to actually claim that they were not true either. Yes, Carpenter did have some other (albeit minor) points in addition to the lack of studies to cast doubt on fears regarding drone warfare, but none of them really built any confidence. Not enough studies have been done on the impacts of drones on warfare and (as the readings have suggested) there is no reliable source on the deaths of noncombatants. Really, it is difficult to take a stance on drone warfare that is not conceptual instead of one actually based on solid statistics.
Though such statistics might be greatly needed, the main obstacle that stands in the way is the US government itself. It has been discussed that transparency could reduce the effectiveness of the US’ drone strikes. However, in order for the population of the US to even be comfortable with the continuance of drone warfare, statistics must be made known and drone warfare must become more transparent. If drone warfare is as effective as the government says it is, the population might be more comfortable with its use after more reliable studies have been release that suggest so.
No comments:
Post a Comment