Arguments In David Bell's Essay In Defense Of Drones

In his essay “In Defense of Drones: a historical argument,” David Bell defends the use of drones as a weapon from critics that doubt the moral and political implications of war “waged by one side without risk to the life and limb of its combatants.” Bell’s creates his arguments using comparisons, quotes, and facts.
Bell’s first argument addresses the concern of drones “radically change[ing] the political dynamics of warfare” by comparing the purpose of drones to that of past weaponry. He states that the motivation of innovation in military technology has been, and still is, to “take out one’s enemies from a safe distance.” He proves this point by citing examples such as bows and guns. By pointing out the similarity in function of drones and other weapons, Bell suggests to the reader that drones will not have a large impact on warfare. Additionally, by comparing drones to more traditional weaponry, the novelty, of which critics are so afraid of, is dispelled.Bell also compares the critiques unleashed upon drones and traditional weapons. He points out that military developments are always accompanied by the same types of doubt. As a result, he casts doubt upon the arguments of modern commentators and, alternatively, makes his argument seem more credible. The sparse use of quotations also serves to removes credibility from his opponents …show more content…
He points out that when these weapons were first invented, they were met with the same criticism as drones. By drawing this comparison, Bell tells the audience that drones are the same as these weapons, simply a “a desire to take out one’s enemies from a safe distance” that is nothing new. He suggests that it is only natural to remove the restraint of death in war and that this would have progressed one way or another. This comparison undermines the assumption that removing the restraints of war is an unnatural and unwise