The Obama administration disclosed that by their count, "airstrikes it has conducted outside conventional war zones like Afghanistan have killed 64 to 116 civilian bystanders and about 2,500 members of terrorist groups" the New York Times reported.\n\nAre drone strikes effective?\n\nThe range of possible civilian deaths reveals just how murky the world of drone strikes are. Critics of drone strikes raise many issues, but there are three big sticking points. The US often does not know who they are striking. They are looking for patterns of behavior and only rarely strike known targets. Secondly, the classification for "militant" has been expanded to any male of military age in the strike zone, which inflates the numbers. Finally, terror attacks are still happening globally, without any signs of slowing. \n\nSupporters of drone strikes say that they are the only effective response to our enemies. Terror groups do not respect international boundaries or conventions. It does not make sense to hold back when we know where they are and can take action. While there is collateral damage with these strikes, it is better than waging full scale war. We cannot stop every attack, but we can disrupt terror cells before they grow too powerful. \n\nWhat do you think?Even the government doesn't know exactly how many they've killed. These kinds of airstrikes allow us to take the fight to the terrorists. Some say the numbers don't add up. It's the world we created. Even the government doesn't know exactly how many they've killed. These kinds of airstrikes allow us to take the fight to the terrorists. Some say the numbers don't add up. It's the world we created.