Drones Have Obviated the Need for Troops to Secure Pakistani Nukes

Peter W. Singer asked an interesting question today: Were it not for drones, would the United States (and allies) have had to invade Pakistan to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands? His question was based on this blog post about some comments made in Australia by counterinsurgency expert John Nagl. Do you agree with Nagl that the benefits of drones in dismantling the Al Qaeda leadership outweigh the problematic aspects of their use (killing of innocents, further radicalization)?

PHOTO CREDIT: mateus_27:24&25 (CC).

Tags: deterrence, nuclear, technology, terrorism, war

Views: 133

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Only partially agree with Nagi i.e.,provided "killing of innocents" in drone attacks is absolutely minimized, 

Drone(s) should not launch missile(s) if probability of civilian casualties is not low e.g., less than20% in most cases (with exceptions for hi-value terrorists with considerable blood on their hands (including Muslim civilians)). Strongly prefer selective drone and special forces attacks over invasion/occupation.  

RSS

Members

Twitter

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

E&IA Journal

Audio

Loading…

© 2017   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Offline

Live Video