Aircraft have made a massive impact on the world today. Aircraft provide the fastest way to get to nearly any given place. Every day countless people use airplanes to travel, some use them as tools, and some are used for simple enjoyment. All of these abilities are great, however, aircraft have always needed to be piloted. Flying above the ground at high speeds is dangerous no matter what the application. The removal of a pilot leaves aircraft to be called drones. They were first used at wartime traced all the way back to World War One according to John Sifton from thenation.com. Since then there have been unbelievable advancements and drones have become a booming industry with both civilian and military uses. While there are many positive applications for drones, I believe that they should be regulated. Neither civilian and military use shouldn't be rule free, as rule free use can surely result with anything from the invasion of privacy all the way to the loss of innocent lives. Where exactly should lines regarding their use be drawn?
Civilian use of drones in the past few years has gone through the roof. It doesn’t take a genius to notice this, for they have flooded electronic stores. Many of the drones made available to every day consumers cost less than a few hundred dollars and in many cases are geared toward children’s use. Stores like best buy have an entire section dedicated to drones now. Many have mounted cameras that allow users to explore a totally new point of view on pretty much whatever they want. The booming economy pumps out new models of flying machines faster than consumers can purchase them. So where are these things being used other than for simple fun?
Something similar to civilian use is commercial use. One particular article written by Bill Virgin refers to a company responsible for servicing cell phone and radio towers using camera equipped drones. Rather than having having to climb thousands of feet to inspect possible issues, a drone can quickly ascend to the top eliminating a large task and risk. Another business owner uses his drones for agriculture according to Tom Foster. The farmer flies a similar type of camera equipped drone over his fields providing a birds eye view of fields. This sort of view allows farmers to assess their crop from a viewpoint they would only get from an airplane.
Camera equipped drones can clearly be beneficial, and not only in these two ways. The ability to access remote places without any human risk makes the applications endless. The problems that arise from this, however, come from the same reason they are so beneficial. The access to views just about anywhere can open up the world to a perverse crowd. Anyone has the ability to fly over someones property or house and see what they are doing. This is an issue that seems unavoidable at this point. Requirement of a license to own a drone with a camera may help lay these worries somewhat to rest, but regulation of something so readily available is difficult.
The biggest concern regarding drones pertains to the military. With military beginnings, the drone was destined to have a lifetime of future military use. Some obvious benefits come from the surveillance features that they provide. After 9/11 happened, major focus was placed on the use of weaponized versions of these machines. Rather than being a simple flying cameras they become flying killing machines. They are able to access battlefields and carry out precise attacks in the same way a regular pilot. These pilots in particular are removed from any danger on the battlefield. According to John Sifton, they are not only physically removed from the battlefield, but also psychologically. An interview with a veteran explains the feeling of having to kill someone. This awful feeling only intensifies as distance is reduced, psychological affect is increased. Sifton claims that a certain phenomena happens in all animals before they attack. When the victim shows submission there is a natural reaction to lower aggression. Removing any presence a pilot has on a battlefield prevents this lowering of aggression that happens during regular combat. It creates a rather trigger-happy pilot.
"Based on this information and its own field investigations, the UK-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism has so far been able to put names to more than 310 civilians killed in Pakistan. So far only 170 or so militants have been identified." C. Woods (2012) This statement sums up the argument against weaponized drone use. With so much energy, and research being put into something then it should be used to reduce harm rather than cause more. Statistics show over and over again that drone strikes cause casualties that compare or trump those that occur from traditional warfare. The difference is, that americans are no longer in the crosshairs in any way, shape, or form. Regardless of peoples' view on the United States' involvement in Iraq, there is no denying the fact that drones are taking innocent lives. Moving into the future, there are possibilities of completely autonomous drones ruling the skies. If/before this happens, a system must be put in place to eliminate so many casualties.
References
Foster, T. (2017). 10 Ways Drones Are Changing Your World. Consumer Reports, 82(1), 44.
VIRGIN, B. (2017). THE DRONE ECONOMY. Seattle Business, 28(1), 22.
Woods, C. (2012). Games without frontiers, war without tears: more US pilots are now being trained to fly drones than conventional jets. But given that 'the most precision weapons in history' kill so many civilians, should they be legal?. New Statesman (1996), (5110). 22.
Drones:
Aircraft have made a massive impact on the world today. Aircraft provide the fastest way to get to nearly any given place. Every day countless people use airplanes to travel, some use them as tools, and some are used for simple enjoyment. All of these abilities are great, however, aircraft have always needed to be piloted. Flying above the ground at high speeds is dangerous no matter what the application. The removal of a pilot leaves aircraft to be called drones. They were first used at wartime traced all the way back to World War One according to John Sifton from thenation.com. Since then there have been unbelievable advancements and drones have become a booming industry with both civilian and military uses. While there are many positive applications for drones, I believe that they should be regulated. Neither civilian and military use shouldn't be rule free, as rule free use can surely result with anything from the invasion of privacy all the way to the loss of innocent lives. Where exactly should lines regarding their use be drawn?Civilian use of drones in the past few years has gone through the roof. It doesn’t take a genius to notice this, for they have flooded electronic stores. Many of the drones made available to every day consumers cost less than a few hundred dollars and in many cases are geared toward children’s use. Stores like best buy have an entire section dedicated to drones now. Many have mounted cameras that allow users to explore a totally new point of view on pretty much whatever they want. The booming economy pumps out new models of flying machines faster than consumers can purchase them. So where are these things being used other than for simple fun?
Something similar to civilian use is commercial use. One particular article written by Bill Virgin refers to a company responsible for servicing cell phone and radio towers using camera equipped drones. Rather than having having to climb thousands of feet to inspect possible issues, a drone can quickly ascend to the top eliminating a large task and risk. Another business owner uses his drones for agriculture according to Tom Foster. The farmer flies a similar type of camera equipped drone over his fields providing a birds eye view of fields. This sort of view allows farmers to assess their crop from a viewpoint they would only get from an airplane.
Camera equipped drones can clearly be beneficial, and not only in these two ways. The ability to access remote places without any human risk makes the applications endless. The problems that arise from this, however, come from the same reason they are so beneficial. The access to views just about anywhere can open up the world to a perverse crowd. Anyone has the ability to fly over someones property or house and see what they are doing. This is an issue that seems unavoidable at this point. Requirement of a license to own a drone with a camera may help lay these worries somewhat to rest, but regulation of something so readily available is difficult.
The biggest concern regarding drones pertains to the military. With military beginnings, the drone was destined to have a lifetime of future military use. Some obvious benefits come from the surveillance features that they provide. After 9/11 happened, major focus was placed on the use of weaponized versions of these machines. Rather than being a simple flying cameras they become flying killing machines. They are able to access battlefields and carry out precise attacks in the same way a regular pilot. These pilots in particular are removed from any danger on the battlefield. According to John Sifton, they are not only physically removed from the battlefield, but also psychologically. An interview with a veteran explains the feeling of having to kill someone. This awful feeling only intensifies as distance is reduced, psychological affect is increased. Sifton claims that a certain phenomena happens in all animals before they attack. When the victim shows submission there is a natural reaction to lower aggression. Removing any presence a pilot has on a battlefield prevents this lowering of aggression that happens during regular combat. It creates a rather trigger-happy pilot.
"Based on this information and its own field investigations, the UK-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism has so far been able to put names to more than 310 civilians killed in Pakistan. So far only 170 or so militants have been identified." C. Woods (2012) This statement sums up the argument against weaponized drone use. With so much energy, and research being put into something then it should be used to reduce harm rather than cause more. Statistics show over and over again that drone strikes cause casualties that compare or trump those that occur from traditional warfare. The difference is, that americans are no longer in the crosshairs in any way, shape, or form.
Regardless of peoples' view on the United States' involvement in Iraq, there is no denying the fact that drones are taking innocent lives. Moving into the future, there are possibilities of completely autonomous drones ruling the skies. If/before this happens, a system must be put in place to eliminate so many casualties.
References
Foster, T. (2017). 10 Ways Drones Are Changing Your World. Consumer Reports, 82(1), 44.
VIRGIN, B. (2017). THE DRONE ECONOMY. Seattle Business, 28(1), 22.
Sifton, J. (2012, February 7). A Brief History Of Drones. Retrieved March 19, 2017, from https://www.thenation.com/article/brief-history-drones/
Woods, C. (2012). Games without frontiers, war without tears: more US pilots are now being trained to fly drones than conventional jets. But given that 'the most precision weapons in history' kill so many civilians, should they be legal?. New Statesman (1996), (5110). 22.
https://www.thenation.com/article/brief-history-drones/
https://medium.com/@swalters/how-can-drones-be-hacked-the-updated-list-of-vulnerable-drones-attack-tools-dd2e006d6809#.kodzr1vig
https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/
http://seattlebusinessmag.com/technology/welcome-drone-economy