Pro: Should the U.S. halt the use of unmanned 'killer' drones?

Yes: They disgrace U.S. in civilized world

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 26, 2011 12:48 p.m.

    We should always be looking for ways to minimize collateral damage; but, should we ban "killer drones"? Absolutely not. To do so would be to significantly handicap ourselves against enemy combatants who use increasingly unconventional methods of combat.

    Oh, and for the record, the picture accompanying the article is NOT of a "killer drone" -- it is a Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk, which is strictly a reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). If the DN wanted a picture of a "killer drone", they should have used a picture of a MQ-1 Predator or MQ-9 Reaper.

    I also generally agree with LDS Liberal that U.S. should discontinue the use of land mines; though, on the other hand, they have been a very effective deterrent to North Korean incursions across the DMZ into South Korean over the past 55 years or so.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 26, 2011 10:23 a.m.

    Killer drones...

    as opposed to what?
    unmanned ICBMs, or unmanned cruise missiles?

    Meanwhile - you've completely ignored the U.S. continued use of unmanned "land mines" which 157 other more "civilized" countries banned the use of.

  • KDave Moab, UT
    Sept. 26, 2011 9:12 a.m.

    Perhaps it is time to re-name the 'war on drugs' and the 'war on povery'.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Sept. 26, 2011 8:34 a.m.

    The drones kill people without a trial? I thought that is what they were for. Killing an enemy combatant without a trial in time of war. Hmmm. Why do we need to bother with a trial? These drones seem like an effective use of our tax payer dollars.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Sept. 25, 2011 5:58 p.m.

    There areonly going to be more and more drones. That is clear.

    The problem always has been that the wealthy that pine for the profits of these wars never have to send thier own sons. Unfortunatly many graduate High School and find thier only path forward in life is to join the military.

    The travesty starts there, not with the unmanned hardware.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 25, 2011 3:49 p.m.

    "If a president doesn't have to be concerned about putting our youth "in harm's way"

    More power to a president who can take out terrorists without having to put our youth in harm's way. There is nothing 'honorable' about requiring the blood our our soldiers to protect us. The same line of reasoning would suggest that we should scrap our battle tanks, nuclear weapons, and fighter jets.

    That line of logic just doesn't make sense.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Sept. 25, 2011 9:18 a.m.

    The question: "Should the U.S. halt the use of unmanned 'killer' drones?."

    The Answer: "NO."

    Why". Only when the Middle East and Pakistan are free of any/all terrorist's. Not until.

    Plus the Red State's needs their oil to over there.