The modern battlefield is a changing environment where new ideas and technology are being tried and implemented. One such technology that has brought recent changes to the battlefield is the Unmanned Aerial Combat Vehicles (UCAV), commonly (and often incorrectly) referred to as “drones”. UCAV can be considered the new weapon of choice to deal with irregular opponents or terrorist organisations, such as those in Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, the use of UCAV is not without contradictory elements and leads to debate. It is within this debate that this study takes foothold. This study will be analysing the debate and issues surrounding this by evaluating four contrasting variables, measuring impact through different means and aiming to increase the understanding of UACV in the field. There are several crossovers in the analysis of all four variables citing the strengths and weaknesses of UCAV provisions in conflict. The analysis, however, conclude that a sole, holistic use of UCAV strikes would not resort in a termination of threats, such as the Taliban or Al-Qaida. This means that both the positive and the negative aspects of UCAV are seen in the conflict and do not contradict one another. Regretfully, this implicates that even if the Taliban and Al-Qaida becomes less effective due to the UCAV strikes, they will not perish.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:fhs-6199 |
| Date | January 2016 |
| Creators | Asplund Thidlund, Peter |
| Publisher | Försvarshögskolan |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds