Drones are unmanned aerial vehicles deployed by U.S. defense and intelligence agencies to collect data and strike suspected enemy targets. The first known U.S. strike was the 2002 killing of al-Qaeda operative Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi in Yemen. Between 2022 and 2020 the U.S. killed between 9,000 and 18,000 enemy combatants and 900-2200 civilians with drone strikes. Opponents of drone strikes have long contended strikes that kill civilians essentially serve as a recruiting poster for terrorist groups. In 2010, a man named Faisal Shahzad tried and failed to bomb Times Square in New York City. Later, Shahzad cited US drone strikes as his motivation for the failed bombing. Proponents of drone strikes argue that they can kill high value w=enemy targets without putting soldiers into combat.
70% Yes |
30% No |
58% Yes |
18% No |
8% Yes, but only with permission from the country in question |
8% No, only to gather intelligence, not to kill suspected terrorists |
4% Yes, the U.S. needs to use all means necessary to combat terrorism |
5% No, the military has no right to do so without a Congressional declaration of war |
See how support for each position on “Drones” has changed over time for 6.7m America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “Drones” has changed over time for 6.7m America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from America users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@8JCJLWV4yrs4Y
Yes but ideally with permission from the country in question.
@5923DDK3yrs3Y
We are killing innocents. We are destroying hospitals by mistake. Sometimes I think about the panic our citizenry would fly into if other nations started using killer drones on us. We would be outraged. And yet here we are, doing this very thing to them.
@979XN3F1yr1Y
Yes, but only if there is no risk of any civilian casualties
@58NVHL83yrs3Y
Isn't this exactly why we have secret spy agencies?
@9GN5KWP6mos6MO
Absolutely to gather intelligence, but assassinations should be permitted only for confirmed, not simply suspected, terrorists
@9GK257P6mos6MO
Absolutely to gather intelligence. Assassination should be reserved for undeniably confirmed terrorists
Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Drones” news articles, updated frequently.
@ISIDEWITH3 days3D
Iran’s president has warned that the “tiniest invasion” by Israel would bring a “massive and harsh” response, as the region braces for potential Israeli retaliation after Iran’s attack over the weekend.President Ebrahim Raisi spoke Wednesday at an annual army parade that was moved to a barracks north of the capital, Tehran, from its usual venue on a highway in the city’s southern outskirts. Iranian authorities gave no explanation for its relocation, and state television didn’t broadcast it live, as it has in previous years.Iran launched hundreds of missiles and drones at Israel over the weekend in response to an apparent Israeli strike on Iran’s embassy compound in Syria on April 1 that killed 12 people, including two Iranian generals.Israel, with help from the United States, the United Kingdom, neighboring Jordan and other nations, successfully intercepted nearly all the missiles and drones.
@ISIDEWITH3 days3D
Hezbollah claims responsibility for the attack on Arab al-Aramshe, saying it targeted a building used by the Israeli military with guided missiles and explosive-laden drones.The terror group says the attack was a response to the killing of three members, including two commanders, in Israeli strikes in southern Lebanon yesterday.At least seven people were wounded in the attack, including two seriously, medics say.
@ISIDEWITH4 days4D
An Iranian military security official has revealed exclusively to The Cradle that the US contacted the Islamic Republic, asking the nation to allow Israel "a symbolic strike to save face” following Iran's retaliatory drone and missile barrage this weekend.“Iran has received messages from mediators to let the regime do a symbolic strike to save face and asked Iran not to retaliate,” the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, revealed to The Cradle.He added that Tehran “outright rejected” the proposal, delivered by mediators, and reiterated warnings that any Israeli attack on Iranian soil would be met with a decisive and immediate response.The reply was delivered directly to the Swiss envoy in Tehran by officials from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and not the foreign ministry. According to The Cradle's source, the decision for the IRGC to reply directly was meant “to send a strong warning to the US.”“Iran successfully embarrassed all of the integrated radar network and anti-missile systems of the US and the [Israeli] regime. The US even activated its parked satellites over the region to do maximum protection and failed miserably,” the Iranian military official added.The revelations come as US defense officials have told western media that they expect a “limited response” from Israel against Iran, which will reportedly focus on targets outside of Iranian territory.Nevertheless, US officials stressed that Tel Aviv had not briefed the Pentagon on a “final decision” as discussions within Israel's fractured war cabinet continued.“The US does not intend to take part in the military response,” they confirmed. However, they expect Israel to inform Washington about response plans in advance. Israel has publicly vowed to respond to the Iranian operation this weekend, which saw the launch of hundreds of drones, ballistic and cruise missiles by the Islamic Republic in retaliation to the Israeli bombing of Iran's consulate in Damascus.“This launch of so many missiles, cruise missiles and drones into Israeli territory will be met with a response,” Israeli army chief of staff, Lt Gen Herzi Halevi, said on Sunday, speaking from the Nevatim air force base in southern Israel, which was one of three military targets successfully hit by the Iranian barrage.Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Bagheri Kani told state TV on Monday night that Tehran's response to any Israeli retaliation would come in “a matter of seconds, as Iran will not wait for another 12 days to respond.”
Explore other topics that are important to America voters.
@ISIDEWITH3wks3W
In a series of developments that have stirred the political landscape, former President Donald Trump has publicly endorsed the presidential bid of independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., describing it as 'great for MAGA.' Trump's remarks came after Kennedy announced his vice-presidential pick, further intensifying the political discourse. Trump, in his characteristic style, took to social media to express his views, labeling Kennedy as the 'most radical left' candidate in the race and highlighting the liberal credentials of Kennedy's running mate, Nicole Shanahan. Despite his criticism of their political stance, Trump views Kennedy's candidacy as beneficial for his MAGA movement, suggesting it could potentially divide the Democratic vote.Kennedy, a figure who has long been associated with controversial views, particularly on the rule of law and established science, has drawn criticism and concern from various quarters. His decision to run for president and the subsequent endorsement by Trump has sparked a flurry of reactions, with some seeing it as a strategic move that could impact the Democratic Party's chances in the upcoming elections. Allies of President Joe Biden have expressed alarm over Kennedy's bid, fearing it could siphon off crucial votes from the left, thereby posing a significant threat to Biden's reelection efforts.The political dynamics surrounding Kennedy's candidacy and Trump's endorsement underscore the complex and often unpredictable nature of American politics. As the race for the presidency heats up, the strategies employed by candidates and their supporters are coming under increased scrutiny. The potential impact of Kennedy's run on the Democratic vote is a topic of much speculation, with analysts and political observers closely monitoring the situation.Trump's support for Kennedy, despite their ideological differences, highlights the former president's tactical approach to politics. By endorsing a candidate who could potentially weaken his opponents, Trump is playing a strategic game, aiming to maximize his own chances of success. This move has not only added a new dimension to the political landscape but has also raised questions about the future direction of both the Republican and Democratic parties.As the United States gears up for another presidential election, the emergence of candidates like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the reactions they provoke from figures like Donald Trump are indicative of the shifting sands of American politics. With the electorate increasingly polarized, the outcome of the election remains uncertain, and the strategies adopted by candidates will be crucial in determining the path forward.
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
Proponents argue that this strategy would bolster national security by minimizing the risk of potential terrorists entering the country. Enhanced screening processes, once implemented, would provide a more thorough assessment of applicants, reducing the likelihood of malicious actors gaining entry.…