You are on page 1of 7

Tsai 1

Ben Tsai

English 112

Mrs. Barnes

14 May 2017

The Future of Drones

Drones are discreetly affecting everybody, in both positive and negative ways. When

there is a highly controversial topic, it can be extremely difficult to make an important decision

regarding the subject. The issue of drones is one of these topics. Drones are unmanned aircrafts

that can navigate autonomously. These aircrafts are very diverse and have many different

attributes and sides. They are used for both military purposes and as commercial/recreational

drones, each with their own dark and light sides. Since drones have conflicting views, it makes it

challenging for opinions to be formed, or an impactful decision to be made which would appeal

to both sides of the argument. While drones can be beneficial and helpful, they can also have

negative aspects.

The possibilities of the future are endless. With all of the technological advancements

occurring everyday, there is no telling what humans will accomplish. Many people have hope for

the future of drones, and believe they can be very helpful. Along with being used to deliver

packages, take aerial videos and pictures, race, and create jobs, drones also play a much more

important role. Drones are currently being used to protect U.S. citizens in the military aspect by

patrolling the borders, as well as responding to disasters. Michael Kotelnik, a retired United

States Air Force major general and the assistant commissioner of the Office of Air wrote an

article on the issue. In the article he said, Drones have several advantages as a homeland
Tsai 2

security tool: they can provide over twenty hours of surveillance on one mission and carry

sensors to meet evolving threats (Kotelnik). Military drones are very useful for the protection of

the united states. Along with this, they are very efficient and are able to supply air support

without risking the life of a pilot. That is why drones are so important, because not only do they

protect people, but they also keep pilots out of harm's way. These drones, such as the predator

and guardian drone, are all said to be operating legally and safely. The U.S. Customs and Border

Protection (CBP), as well as the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of

Defense, all help to regulate and control these drones. They have multiple Certificates of

Aviation from the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure the drones meet all requirements.

The CBP, work with many organizations and operational limitations that ensure the safety of

other NAS users and people and property on the ground (Kotelnik). When working

domestically the CBP go to great lengths to make sure all of their work with drones is done

legally, and safely.

With all the future possibilities for drones, one must fear the dangerous opportunities

which drones create. With every positive, comes a negative, and drones are no exception.

Although there are many positive uses, it would be unwise to neglect the negative uses as well.

Naturally, people will be worried about their privacy, but when thinking practically, it is easy to

see that privacy is not the biggest concern. An attorney, John Whitehead, shares his point of view

for the future of drones. He, along with others, are concerned drones will eventually be used to

control and contain people and law enforcement officials will likely weaponize domestic

drones (Whitehead). He provides evidence from past occurrences to prove that his thoughts are

not unrealistic. In the past, law enforcement have used military tools in domestic situations. They
Tsai 3

incorporated both tear gas and tasers into their arsenal. Whitehead writes almost like a

conspiracy theorist when he talks about how drones are advancing more dangerously, and cant

decipher between suspect and innocent. Drones can hurt people in more than just purposeful

situations, there can also be the inevitable accidents. Even with the current laws in no flight

zones, it is still probable that drones could interfere with commercial flights and potentially

cause a disaster. In both of these ways, drones are seen as the inevitable destruction of human

lives.

Now, Whitehead was writing about law enforcement, who are, in the United States,

ultimately on the civilians side. Drones being used to commit malicious and truly despicable

atrocities, is a completely different subject. Probably the most prevalent danger of drones is the

weaponized threat. This threat is very real. David Stuckenberg, a national security expert, states

that, In recent years, lone actors and groups acting on behalf of extremist organizations have

tried, failed, and succeeded with drone attacks (Stuckenberg). The weaponization and terrorist

use of commercial drones was inevitable the moment drones were created. It is evident drones

can deliver a very lethal outcome. With the ever advancing technology of the twenty-first

century, there also comes more ways to potentially hurt people. Along with drones possibly

being an obvious loaded killing machine, they can also cause harm in less obvious ways.

Stuckenberg writes, drones could potentially deliver chemical, biological or other weapons.

And it's already been done (Stuckenberg). The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical

Weapons in Netherlands explained an incident in 2014 in which radioactive material was used on

a drone in an attack in Japan. Although there are many outgoing positive effects of drones, the

negative effects propose a consideration for security protocols.


Tsai 4

The overwhelming abundance of both positive and negative consequences of drone use

show that a solution needs to be made in the upcoming future. Unfortunately, the general

population has split opinions. A survey was conducted where fifty people, chosen at random,

answered questions about drones. After the results were viewed, it seemed relevant that exactly

half of the people think drone laws need to be more strict, while the other half do not. In an

interview conducted with a deputy sheriff and the assistant safety director for Jackson Local

School District, Eric Escola introduced a brilliant point when he agreed drone laws need to be

more strict. He then said, It will be a challenging task to enforce stricter drone laws. It will take

local, state, and federal cooperation to enforce laws as they are enacted. Past experiences and

current trends lead some to believe drone laws need to either stay the same or become more

strict. It has also led others to believe drones need to be banned as a whole. Mr. Escola is right,

there does need to be a change within the drone laws, but in which direction?

Since people cant seem to reach a consensus, it is challenging for the government to

reach a mutually beneficial solution. While some think that drone laws need to stay the same for

the uses of racing, filming, package delivering, etc., many others believe a drone ban is necessary

for the protection of the American people. But the unbiased viewpoint of Vivek Wadhwa, a

fellow at stanford university, brings important information to the table. He is aware of the

dangers of drones, and he takes them into account, but he still strongly believes a ban is not

necessary. He states, then there is the practicability of enforcement. If the government should

institute restrictions and penalties, who will enforce them? and there needs to be a core

technology framework for collision avoidance (Wadhwa). Much like the Prohibition, Wadhwa

believes it will be unenforceable and become more of a serious problem. There are many
Tsai 5

problems with drones, but it seems logical that a ban is not the best option. Changes do need to

be made, big changes, for better or for worse. Whatever side the changes benefit doesnt matter,

because both sides are looking to benefit American citizens. But with the disagreements between

each side, it is nearly impossible for a decision to be reached. It is evident, that drones affect

people in both positive and negative ways, and that a nearly impossible compromise needs to be

made.
Tsai 6

Works Cited

Escola, Eric. Personal interview. 6 March 2017.

Kostelnik, Michael C. "Drones Are Effective for Border Security and Disaster Assistance."

Drones, edited by Louise Gerdes, Greenhaven Press, 2014. At Issue. Opposing

Viewpoints in Context,

link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010888213/OVIC?u=mass12242&xid=be9ab075.

Accessed 12 Jan. 2017. Originally published as "The Role of Unmanned Aircraft

Systems in Border Security," 2010.

Stuckenberg, David, and Sarah Nilsson. "MEETING THE DRONE THREAT." Tampa Bay

Times [St. Petersburg, FL], 17 Oct. 2016, p. 5. Global Issues in Context,

link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A466802282/GIC?u=mass12242&xid=a0218767. Accessed

12 Jan. 2017.

Tsai, Benjamin. Drones Survey. Survey. 16 March 2017.

Wadhwa, Vivek. "Banning Commercial Drones Is Not the Answer." Drones, edited by Tamara

Thompson, Greenhaven Press, 2016. Current Controversies. Opposing Viewpoints in


Tsai 7

Context,

link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010977228/OVIC?u=mass12242&xid=8786e6f3.

Accessed 11 Jan. 2017. Originally published as "Banning Drones Won't Solve the

Problem," HuffingtonPost.com, 10 Dec. 2014.

Whitehead, John W. "The Domestic Use of Drones Poses Serious Threats to Civil Liberties."

Drones, edited by Louise Gerdes, Greenhaven Press, 2014. At Issue. Opposing

Viewpoints in Context,

link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010888211/OVIC?u=mass12242&xid=d07181e5.

Accessed 11 Jan. 2017. Originally published as "Commentary: Drones over America:

Tyranny at Home," www.rutherford.org, 28 June 2010.

You might also like