Editorial

Army Technology Saves Lives of Air Force Pilots

     Many men and women owe their lives to a new technology researched by the United States military.  Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are the most recent in a long line of groundbreaking technologies brought into the public eye by US military scientists.  Inventions credited to them include GPS, the internet, duct tape, the microwave, and countless others.  They ahve always invented amazing things, and then release them to the public who wait with open arms.  Sometimes their inventions are criticized by the media, even though they are productive.  UAVs have come under heavy fire recently by some liberal politicians for their drastic missions.  They are innovative technologies and should be utilized to their full potential.
     These drones were made to keep pilots safe.  In the military, the term "boots on the ground" is often used to classify offensives in other countries.  If the situation gets to the point where American "boots" have to make contact with foreign "ground", the public is usually informed and becomes opinionated.  Boots being on the ground usually means that there is a high possibility of death for boot wearers.  The step before boots on the ground combat is usually "boots in the sky".  This refers to American piloted planes performing combat missions over foreign ground.  Wearers of sky boots often have a much higher survival rate that ground boot wearers.  None the less, there is a very real possibility of American death where skybooting is concerned.  With the UAVs, American boots could end their relationship with foreign ground almost entirely.  They allow pilots to fly planes remotely from a secure command center, possibly in The United States.  By preventing the need for Americans in combat zones, UAVs have the potential to save countless lives if fully implimented.
     In addition to saving American lives, UAVs are shown to prevent enemy civilian casualties.  In the second world war, many of the tactics used were centered around maximizing civilian deaths.  Governments thought their opponents would back down if enough of their civilians were killed.  This tactic did not prove to be the most successful and ever since then, in fear of the media, politicians and officers try to put together plans to minimize death of innocents.  In recent efforts, they have turned to the precision and speed of UAVs.  They provide the US with a way to infiltrate enemy territory, and concetrate efforts where they are needed the most.  UAVs can be outfitted with various types of weapons, enabling them carry out a diverse set of missions.  They are great for reconaissance missions, being less expensive to fly than fighter jets, and able to fly longer, up to 27 hours.  In 2013, UAV missions had a civilian casualty rate of only 30%, meaning that 7 out of every ten people killed were enemy leaders.  This is much better than the fighter jet ratio and was carried out faster.  While UAVs are a better alternatives for the US in the ever-changing combat world, they are also better for those who want to stay out of combat in their homeland.
     Those against the use of UAVs have two main claims.  The first is that UAVs violate international law. They claim the United Nations charter states that a country can not use lethal force on another without mutual consent, usually during war.  Our use of these weapons without the consent of the countries in which we are usimg them, viotlates this law.  Their claim comes from a misinterpretation of the law.  The people who we are trying to stop are not from a country, they are from a terrorist organization.  Therefore, this law does not apply in the case of the US using UAVs to strike threats.  The other claim is that the missions carried out by UAVs are secretive, and their information is not released to the public.  At first glance this may sound legitimate, but on further inspection, its absurdity is obvious.  If the military were to give the information of all its missions and their results out to the public, how would they keep secrets from their enemies?  Until the situation is resolved, it is necessary to maintain a degree of secrecy.  Without it, the enemies would continue to stay one step ahead of us, and the conflicts would never end.
       UAVs have many uses on and off the battle field.  Banning them altogether would eliminate any good they are currently doing.  Regulating them and requiring military transparency would be even worse.  The best option is to stay the course.  The opposition to the current system has brought no concrete evidence to show its problems.  All they can do is speculate while hard working men and women are getting results.