上海新航道SAT培訓(xùn)學(xué)校給大家?guī)?lái)了SAT作文范文話(huà)題合集：現(xiàn)代戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)武器，希望幫助考生對(duì)照文本更好的研究真題，充分備考，爭(zhēng)取理想成績(jī)，實(shí)現(xiàn)留學(xué)夢(mèng)想。

  SAT寫(xiě)作高分范文：

  Once upon a time, American military might was symbolized by the heavy boots of the Marine Corps, stomping ashore to reestablish order in unruly parts of the world. Today, it is symbolized by unmanned drone aircraft, controlled from thousands of miles away, dropping bombs on terrorists. Drone use aims to cut troops, ships and planes while concentrating our military energies on spy technology, cyber warfare, jammers, and special operations forces.

  The embrace of technology over traditional methods of combat has provoked critics who doubt the morality and political implications of 'remote control warfare'. Norte Dame law professor Mary Ellen O'Connell, argues that 'to accept killing far from battlefields where there is an understanding of necessity is ethically troubling.' 'The Economist' similarly asked: 'if war can be waged by one side without risk to the life and limb of its combatants, has a vital form of restraint been removed?'

  Other critics tend to present this new frontier of warfare as something largely novel--one that radically changed the political dynamics of warfare. But if our current technology is new, the desire to take out one's enemies from a safe distance is anything but. From the beginnings of warfare, combatants have sought technological advantages of allowing them to kill enemies with minimum risk to themselves. And, these advances have always provoked criticism. We don't know if anyone excoriated the inventor of the bow and arrow as a dishonorable coward who refused to risk death in a hand to hand fight. Not surprisingly, after gunpowder weapons appeared, critics unloosed torrents of chivalric outrage. As late as the 1500's, the Italian poet Ariosto raged at this 'wicked and terrible discovery' which had 'destroyed martial glory and reduced valor and virtue to nought.'

  Over the centuries, advances in military technology added to the anonymity of killing. By 1918, the Germans had developed guns that could fire 200 pound shells a distance of 80 miles, over a trajectory that took them to an altitude of over 130,000 feet. This and other developments provoked criticism similar to that now heard against drone warfare.

  It is crucial to note that since 1975 the sort of mass warfare characterized by anonymous killing and massive conscript armies has been quite strikingly reversed. Except from two campaigns in Iraq, the U.S. has largely fought against irregular, insurgent forces and terrorists, and actual combat has mostly taken place at much closer range than it did for the average infantryman of either world war. This development ought to console critics who worry about the moral and political implications of anonymous, long-distance killing: Soldiers remaining on the battlefield-- and none more than the special operations forces that the administration relies on so heavily--are more likely to see their enemies up close than their grandfathers did, and to run very great risks indeed.

  Of course, drone warfare aims to safeguard American lives and also put a premium on other lives for very practical, political reasons. The critics of drone warfare argue that without Americans running the risk of death, a vital restraint up one murderously aggressive military action will disappear, and countless innocent civilians will die. But in combating insurgents and terrorists, an actions' political effects matter just as much, if not more, than their purely military ones, and high civilian death tolls are not just moral outrageous, but political disasters.

  What the history of war makes clear is that 'remote control warfare' does not signal an abolition of restraints on war's destructive power. Using technology to strike safely at an opponent is as old as war itself. It has been seen in eras of highly-controlled and restrained warfare, and in eras of unrestrained total war-- and the present day, thankfully, belongs to the first category. Ultimately, restraints upon war are more a matter of politics than of technology. If you are concerned about American aggression, it is not the drones you should fear, but the politicians who order them into battle.

  以上就是SAT寫(xiě)作范文合集，更多SAT寫(xiě)作資料，請(qǐng)點(diǎn)擊：SAT寫(xiě)作頻道 。

請(qǐng)加COCO老師（微信號(hào)：shnc_2018）

百人留學(xué)備考群，名師答疑，助教監(jiān)督，分享最新資訊，領(lǐng)取獨(dú)家資料。掃碼免費(fèi)加入