Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPAs): Technological Advancement or Conventional Weapon of War

WS5510-DQ 4 Responses
Student Name
University
Course
Professor’s Name
Due Date
Response Post #1
I agree that drones or Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPAs) constitute a relatively new technology shaping contemporary warfare. Although the nature and employment of drones in war against transnational terrorism vary widely, their use remains subject to the conventional laws governing manned aircraft (Schmitt, 2011, p. 3). Drones come in handy in operations that could be deadly for a human-crewed aircraft and in conducting intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) functions. The RPAs are also essential for conducting special operations both during daylight and at night.
The jus in bello applies specifically to armed conflicts at international and non-transnational levels. Operations not achieving this threshold are guided by the necessary human rights and constitutional standards (Schmitt, 2011, p.7). More specifically, the jus in bello relates to the legitimacy of the methods used to wage warfare (Williams & Caldwell, 2006, p. 310). I agree with the argument that the use of drones is entirely legal and justifiable based on the jus in bello principle. Although a war could cause some degree of civilian loss of lives and property, it is unwarranted to discredit the value of drones based on this assumption. Mistakes are bound to happen in the confusion of warfare, and this does not make using drones unlawful (Schmitt, 2011, p. 8). The United States (U.S.) has been known to conduct drone strikes in their military missions in different parts of the world. Similarly, Russia’s use of Chinese drones to hit Ukraine forces cannot be underestimated and constitutes a strategic threat to America’s military hegemony. Despite the various controversies related to their use, I agree that drones have been instrumental in avoiding military and civilian casualties. Critics’ argument that drones create an impetus for the &ldqu...