This paper makes a conclusion that the use of animals for warfare is normally a contentious issue. Proponents of the debate argue that the use of animals for warfare helps to save human lives. They state that human lives are more important than animal lives. Hanson in his defense for the use of animals used the cliché ‘save people, not pets’ to show the significance of animals in warfare. Due to their well-developed sensory and respiratory systems, animals perform various functions. Some of the common roles or duties performed by animals include the detection of bombs or landmines, and sniffing out the enemy. On the contrary, opponents of the debate cite the concept of animal cruelty as the main reason why they oppose the move. Since there are no laws that protect animals used for war, they are often mistreated. For instance, the American army starves dolphins by tying their mouths. This prevents them from eating food or other fishes. Also, dogs are left behind by troops or killed after a war ends because they pose a danger to civilians. In conclusion, animals should be used for warfare because they help save the lives of soldiers and people. When compared to animal lives, human lives are more precious. Furthermore, animals such as dogs have been used for rescue missions to locate lost soldiers or pilots. The use of animals for war fare is contained in the national security exclusions. This gives the military the power to use the animals in any way they like.