Abstract
This research paper explores the question of whether unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), also known as drones, should be considered “friend” or “foe.” The thesis is that the appropriateness of drone use depends on the circumstance. The first body paragraph argues that the widespread use of drones in warfare is inappropriate because drone use can hurt people who were not the intended targets, which can undermine strategic military objectives. The body second paragraph argues that excessive drone use is inappropriate in military contexts because it can lead to mental health problems for civilians. The third body paragraph argues that drones can be considered a “friend” in environmental monitoring by improving disaster prediction capabilities. The fourth body paragraph argues that drones can also be appropriately used for tourism. The fifth body paragraph discusses the promise of the use of UAVs in academic and educational settings. In the conclusion paragraph, the main points of the paper are summarized.
The appropriateness of the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), also known as drones, is one of the most hotly debated topics in society today. While some drone enthusiasts have been excited about the many possible applications of drone technology, other observers have concerns about safety risks and inappropriate use of drones in certain settings. Although some governments have passed legislation regarding the use of drones, the body of law on drone use is still limited, and the degree to which legal regulations will govern drone use in the future is unclear. Given the wide range of applications of UAVs and drone technology, it is not possible to fully characterize UAVs as “friend” or “foe.” Rather, the appropriateness of the use of drones depends on the circumstance. In some contexts, the use of drones is beneficial, but in other situations, they have negative consequences that outweigh the advantages of their use.
One of the areas in which the negative aspects of drone use outweigh the benefits is in warfare. Although it originally seemed that drones could be a good way for the military to conduct targeted operations in a way that would minimize risk for personnel and bystanders, this has not proven to be the case in the U.S. military ventures in the Middle East (Mayer, 2015). Drones are not nearly as precise as some people claim they are, so as the U.S. military has increased the use of drones in the Middle East, more civilians bystanders have been killed alongside intended targets (Emery & Brunstetter, 2015). Not only is it immoral to unnecessarily kill an innocent bystander, but causing a great deal of collateral damage is undermining the goals of the United States in the Middle East. For years, the United States has been trying to support the development of a stable situation in Afghanistan so that it can finally pull out of the country and end the longest war in U.S. history. However, inaccurate drone strikes increase civilian unrest, which strengthens the Taliban and other opposition groups – desstabilizing the situation and lengthening the protracted conflict.
Drones also represent a moral hazard in warfare because of the psychological effects that they have on civilians. A recent study by researchers at Stanford and NYU suggests that individuals in Pakistan, where the United States has significantly increased the use of drone strikes to fight terrorism, cause “pervasive worry about future trauma,” also known as “anticipatory anxiety” (Emery & Brunstetter, 2015). This contributes to the development of a wide range of mental health problems, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and insomnia (Emery & Brunstetter, 2015). Considering that the United States is not even at war with Pakistan, it is not appropriate to force Pakistani civilians to suffer under the constant threat of being killed by a drone strike. There are other ways to take out terrorist targets in Pakistan, such as special operations raids like the one that killed Osama bin Laden. Such raids do not have reduce the quality of life of Pakistani civilians the way that drones strikes do, and they are just as effective which suggests that the widespread use of drones unnecessary. Because drones have such significant disadvantages for innocent civilians, it is not appropriate to use them so widely in warfare.
Even though the widespread use of drones in warfare is highly problematic, there are still applications in which drone technology offers major advantages without significant drawbacks. One such application is environmental monitoring, particularly in coastal environments. There are many different types of UAVs – including fixed-wing UAVs, rotary wing UAVs, and blimps, balloons, and kites – that can be used for environmental monitoring applications (Klemas, 2015). Using the environmental information collected from UAVs, it is easier for scientists to forecast weather events and predict natural disasters (Klemas, 2015). This could improve disaster preparedness in cities around the world, since it will give government officials more time to figure out how to respond, and it will give civilians more time to evacuate if necessary. Better strategies for responding to natural disasters will be increasingly important in the coming years, since climate change is likely to increase the frequency and severity of coastal weather events. Considering that drone technology may be able to help minimize the damage caused by these hazards, it can be considered a “friend” in the field of environmental monitoring.
Another field in which the benefits of drone technology outweigh the drawbacks is tourism. There are millions of people around the world who do not have the physical or financial capacity to travel to popular tourist destinations, but virtual reality simulations created by drones can give them the chance to fully experience these locations – often even more comprehensively than they would if they actually traveled to the site (Rutkin, 2015). Plus, traveling to tourist destination by car or by airplane can significantly contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, which makes drone tourism an environmentally friendly alternative for people who want to experience the world but are also committed to slowing the rate of climate change.
The one major drawback of using drones to collect visual and auditory data from popular tourist destinations is that they may pose a safety risk. In the past, there have been incidents in which drones that are flying too close to the ground have injured civilians (Rutkin, 2015). However, it would be possible to remedy this situation by imposing strict regulations on timing, such as temporarily closing a site while data is being captured. This could be a minor inconvenience for real-world tourists, but it could be organized in a way that would not significantly impact their vacation. Therefore, drone tourism is another way that UAV technology can be used that can be characterized as “friendly.”
Finally, there are benefits to using drones for academic research and education. For instance, in one recent article, human geography researchers in Australia touted the benefits of drone technology to support studies in the social sciences (Birtchnell & Gibson, 2015). According to the researchers, “beyond the obvious benefits of combining fieldwork outdoors with aerial data capture for later analysis and visualization in the classroom, the participants in the pilot exercise described above felt themselves to be vanguards in exploring novel ways of doing research and contributing to mobile methods” (Birtchnell & Gibson, 2015). This suggests that drones can help researchers obtain higher quality data. Also, when used in an educational context, it may get students more excited about the things that they are learning. In both cases, drones offer significant benefits without any clear drawbacks. Moreover, even though human geography is a relatively niche field, it is entirely feasible that drones could provide support for research on other fields within both the social sciences and physical sciences. Therefore, drones can be considered a “friend” to both researchers and teachers within the field of academia.
In conclusion, there is no clear answer as to whether unmanned aerial vehicles should be considered a “friend” or a “foe.” Rather, this question must be answered based on the specific application for which drone technology is being used. In warfare, the experiences of the United States in the Middle East have shown that the widespread use of drones is inappropriate because drones can cause serious collateral damage and harm the mental health of innocent civilians living in drone-occupied areas – even when they are not technically war zones. At the same time, using UAVs for environmental sensing could significantly advance disaster preparedness efforts, and they could also expand tourism opportunities for people who are unable to travel, as long as certain concerns about safety are adequately addressed. Finally, drones offer promising benefits within the field of academia. Thus, the only logical conclusion is that the appropriateness of drones in certain settings must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, because their value varies based on context.
- Birtchnell, T. & Gibson, C. (2015). Less talk more drone: social research with UAVs. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 39(1), 182-9.
- Emery, J.R. & Brunstetter, D.R. (2015). Drones as aerial occupation. Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice 27, 424-31.
- Klemas, V.V. (2015). Coastal and environmental remote sensing form unmanned aerial vehicles: An overview. Journal of Coastal Research 31(5), 1260-7.
- Mayer, M. (2015). The new killer drones: understanding the strategic implications of next-generation unmanned combat aerial vehicles. International Affairs 91(4), 765-80.
- Rutkin, A. (2015). See the sights by air with drone tourism. New Scientist 226(3024).
