FAA Official: Drone, Jetliner Nearly Collided Over Florida - Literature review Example

The Drones Controversy Botelho, Greg. May 11). “FAA Official: Drone, Jetliner Nearly Collided Over Florida.” CNN. Retrieved on 28 July, 2014 from http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/travel/unmanned-drone-danger/ Summary The article in the link provided was created earlier this year after the shocking news went on air regarding a near-collision between a drone and a commercial plane above the city of Florida. This incident caused much uproar from both civilians and technological agencies who begged to question the safety of drone use, which is going viral in the United States, and the world at large. Some agents from the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA came clean on the dangers of drones sharing the skies with planes, stating that this one particular incident would have been overly catastrophic. The article went on to reveal past incidences involving drones, and which resulted in actual harm to property and people. One incident was a drone crashing at a motor speedway in Virginia, while the other incident was in Australia in which a lady was struck by a falling drone. To better define the potential harm which could have resulted, the author gives an example of planes which have been inconvenienced by mere collisions with birds. This poses the real danger in the event that a metallic drone, maybe loaded with weapons, collides with a plane. In the concluding part, the FAA is portrayed as the body in charge of aerial safety, and is thus blamed for such occurrences. Suggestions offered include devising means of planes to detect drones at safe distances, control of drone licenses, and hefty subjection of legal means to offenders of the FAA’s regulations regarding drone safety (Botelho, 2014). Analysis The issue highlighted in this article highlights a controversial matter in the context of technology. The 21st century has seen the greatest leap technology-wise with the internet technology supporting the emergence of thousands of new inventions. Key amongst these is drone (or Unmanned Air Vehicles, UAVs) technology. About a decade ago, there were no realistic drones, with the little ones only existing in America’s virtual laboratories. However, today, drones exist the world over, with an average 70 states possessing them. What differs are their purposes since some drones are used for security purposes, others as weapons, others from spying, others for shipping customer orders, while some are privately owned by individual for leisure purposes. What this means is that drones are increasing in the air on a daily basis, and that calls for alarm. How safe are they? The Florida incident is just one of the few reported cases regarding drone accidents. These new inventions are more harmful than they appear. One of the shocking revelations about drones is that they vary in size and the most recent modifications are meant to make them as small as real-life insects such as flies and mosquitoes. While this may solve the issue of accidents, it sparks a new concern about privacy. The problem here is that once the invention is out and hits the market, these small drones might be used to spy on people’s private lives, or get into the wrong hands and be used to breach security codes of conduct. People will no longer be at ease knowing that these artificial insects might me posing in their ways as they sleep, take showers, or discuss overly sensitive matters. To add to these, and as was seen in the Iraqi War, drones were used to target terrorist bases, and used to launch attacks. The reason they were used is because they are automatic, and are remotely controlled. Again, they are hardest to track, move very fast, are cheaper to maintain, and are very accurate compared to human-controlled warplanes. The problem arises in that in being remotely controlled; such loaded drones can easily collide with planes or buildings and cause multiple disasters. This also makes sense in that any machine is susceptible to mechanical failures and if these affected the drones, they end up crashing on human habitats, leaving destruction in their wake. While this technology is meant to be for the good of humanity, it drags its own challenges along. This is so because people will own them privately, and that creates a channel for their misuse. For instance, what would happen if an armed drone is possessed by terrorists, or if malicious-minded persons hack into the drone control systems and launch attacks on human populations? How about so many people owning drones such that they fill the skies, making both skies and land vulnerable to disasters at all times? Generally, it is sufficient to state that while this technology is promising in terms of effectiveness, it has not been properly evaluated and is therefore dangerous to the human race. Evaluation Ruling out this technology is impossible at this point in time. This is so because apart from many states possessing them, some nations such as the US, the UK, Israel, China, and Russia are producing their own drones. One of the potential resolutions to this emerging problem would be installing international standards to guard the use of drones. This can be done through humanitarian organizations such as the UN. There could be policies such as limiting drones to federal authorities only, setting different flying heights for drones and other aerial vehicles, banishing war drones from flying over human habitats, and installation of detect-and-repel mechanisms on both planes and drone so that they do not collide in mid-air. Individuals should not be allowed to own destructive drones, and for those who own any type of drone, they should be monitored by laws similar to the firearm laws. Finally, drones should not be allowed to carry weapons of mass destruction such as atomic bomb or chemical artillery. Conclusion As the analysis reveals, the virility of drone use has begun generating problems in its early stage, and therefore calls for immediate action before it turns to a nightmare invention. This does not imply that the drones should not be used, but owing to their affordability, size, lethality, and popularity, they lay exposed to misuse. As such, measures should be put in place to ensure that privacy is not breached, safety is not overlooked, and that only responsible hand controls the tiny birds. Crowley, M. (2014, June 2). “Obama Didn’t Negotiate With ‘Terrorists’ for Bergdahl.” Time. Retrieved on 28th July, 2014 from http://time.com/2809612/bowe-bergdahl-obama-taliban/ Summary of article Crowley wrote this article following the “exchange” of five Taliban (terrorists) with captured United States soldier, Bowe Berghal. This was seen as a breach of American policies which state that they do not negotiate with terrorists at any one point. This caused uproar amongst the Obama administration with some Republicans criticizing the move to release top-notch terrorists formerly held at the Guantanamo Bay. The article states, “It has long been America’s unwavering, bipartisan policy not to negotiate with terrorists, especially for the exchange of hostages”. The source of debate, from many Americans, is that this may encourage terrorists to take in more American hostages just so they can lobby for “negotiations” and have their own released. Historical occurrences of the same have been highlighted, such as the 1979 negotiations between America and Iranian terrorists based in Tehran under Carter’s administration. The terrorists demanded for charges of up to 11 billion U.S. dollars. The same happened with Bill Clinton in the 1990’s. The most recent cases highlighted were during the Iraqi War under President Bush in which his administration negotiated with Sunni rebels to free American prisoners or even assist them in gaining mileage into the war. The article finally reveals that Obama’s administration defended its action, claiming it did not negotiate for “hostages” but a prisoner of war. It further added that the Taliban is not officially listed in the terrorist lists of America (Crowley, 2014). Analysis of article Advantages As is the case with all other controversial issues, this one too attracted both pro and anti reactions. It however, seemed like the larger American context felt that the negotiation was against American norms, and was therefore against it. The smaller population, which was in the act claimed that in negotiating for Bowe Berghal’s release, America has gained more from than the Taliban group. To support this, the Obama administration claimed that the five terrorists released were not threats to America’s or global security, and that they were merely opposers of American military activities on the ground. This, they added, was not the type of terrorists who target planes of American infrastructure. In short, they sought to justify that the act was safe and necessary. The second advantage which emerges from the move is that the American people felt that their country cared for them, and would protect their welfare through any means possible. Although it is not an act practiced in large-scale, it may work to keep the hopes of captured Americans high that they would be saved someday. This is important to the American people with regards to national pride and a sense of belonging. Disadvantages The negotiation in analysis, was an unnecessary move, and was seemingly uninformed. This is revealed by the many disadvantages which the situation may present, as the following section discusses. First of all, as the article suggested, this may prompt terrorists to adopt a culture of kidnapping Americans so that they can have their own released. Additionally, it may prompt, organized groups to turn to demanding ransom after capturing people, and use this as an economic activity. The other demerit is that in negotiating with terrorists, the United States is placing the whole world at risk of losing the war on terror. This is so because the people who are captured and detained in camps such as Guantanamo Bay are hardcore criminals who are termed as international threats. Due to that, it becomes evident that by releasing them back to the free world, America indirectly cripples the war on terror because the terrorists are likely to re-indulge in their former actions of terrorizing the world. The final issue is that in releasing five terrorists for the exchange of one man, the deal can be termed as having benefitted the terrorists more. It would have seemed fair had the deal been a 1 to 1 ratio; that is, the terrorists to receive one prisoner for the release of the one American man. The problem with this is that terrorists may detect the weakness and use it against America or other nations. This would occur in that they might kidnap persons and demand exchanges or ransoms which are unequal, with them being on the advantaged side (Dolnik & Fitzgerald, 2008).  Opinion From these comparisons, it can be concluded that the bad part of the deal outdid the good, and that America lost in it. The only gain that America obtained from it is that their soldier was freed, and that American nationals were “more assured” of their safety and wellbeing. The negative context however affects not just America, but the globe at large. This is so because more kidnappings may occur, releasing terrorists endangers the globe, and that these acts may spread across the world. Although negotiations save situations such as kidnappings or hostages, they should be well-informed, and should be made as transparent as can be possible. This would reduce the negative aftereffects or controversies emerging from such. Conclusion To counter these occurrences, negotiations like this one should come as the last resort; that is after all other means have proven futile. Military intervention, for instance, may have been applied, or at least evidence should have been provided to prove that there was no other way out of the crisis. Finally, America should have used the negotiations as a means of gaining the upper hand in war against terror. The American authorities should have intelligently implanted say, tracking chips into them so that they could trace them to where they went after the release. This would have been taking advantage of the situation and would have discouraged terrorists from engaging in such. It is however not too late to handle the situation differently next time it occurs. Stephen, W. H. (2014). Can gay love really be straight? A reply to Mark Joseph Stern, 38 (2). From: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/07/can-gay-love-really-be-straight-2 Summary The entire content of this article tries to show that gay love is not similar to straight love. The article contradicts most people’s rhetoric of sameness between gay love and straight love.In order to demonstrate the difference between gay marriage and straight marriage, the author of the article contrasts this issue with the movement of African American Civil Rights. He tries to show that black Americans were not treated in an equal way with white just because they were whites who had black appearance. The author argues that people should acknowledge that there is a very great difference between gay love and straight love. The article emphasizes that gay marriage advocates should understand that no one can change human nature, especially sexual nature since the nature of human beings is not flexible. The writer concludes by emphasizing that if gay love was similar to straight love, then gay marriage would be able to fulfill the most important institution of our society the same way heterosexuality does.Scientists have also tried to point out the differences between anal penetration and opposite sex intercourse.According to this article the answer to the question of whether gay love is similar to straight love is simply no and there is no time when gay love (anal penetration) will be similar to straight love (penile-vaginal intercourse). Analysis The content of this article contradicts most people’s rhetoric of sameness between gay love and straight love. This sameness is typical and mainly employed by many supporters of gay love to promote gay marriage. In order to demonstrate the difference between gay marriage and straight marriage, Stephen contrasts this issue with the movement of African American Civil Rights, which were passed by, giving black Americans civil rights without erasing their specific culture and history and distinctiveness between blacks and whites. What the whites did was only learning to treat blacks as the other whites, but not exactly in the same way as themselves. The whites did not treat the African Americans as Americans who had black appearance. Therefore, why do advocates of gay marriage convince people to agree that gay love is similar to straight love? People should acknowledge that there is a very great difference between gay love and straight love.However, gay love is similar to straight love when we consider things such as love, support, affection, and commitment. It is essential to note that this same argument is based on the issue that straight love is similar to gay love. In addition, it backs the notion that gay culture is similar to straight love culture. However, the author of this article argues against those authors who punt on the large indefensible claims supporting that there is sameness between gay love and straight love. These are the advocates who defend the smaller claims that couples of gay marriage are the same as couples in straight marriages. However, these small claims have some merits since some of the couples in gay marriage are as loving, supportive, affectionate, and committed as couples in straight marriages. But the fact is that the affection that takes place between couples in gay marriage does not entail that homosexuality has marriage natural orientation as it is in heterosexual marriage. In addition, this does not mean that couples in gay marriage have similar marriage experiences and understanding to that of straight marriage couples. Additionally, this does not entail that the behaviors, norms, and attitudes of gay couples can reform their marriage to resemble heterosexual marriage and also reform the homosexuality realities that are known by many people. Gays cannot make their homosexual marriage fit the paradigms of marriage as it is the case with straight couples who can redefine sensual interaction. Gay marriage advocates should understand that no one can change human nature, especially sexual nature since the nature of human beings is not flexible. Most gay advocates argue that, marriage does not only mean sex, but other many things. They argue that marriage is more sex, but these advocates are wrong to forget that marriage is as well anything that is less than sex. Most of gay supporters claim that marriage is just a very close type of friendship, but this is not the exact meaning of marriage. Marriage according to the holy book “Bible” is a spiritual bond that is founded on a physical act, “sex”. The above point is clear evidence showing how gay marriage culture has changed people’s views about marriage. Most people view sex as an important thing towards marriage, to extend that penile-vaginal intercourse is viewed as the core of emotional, physical, and spiritual connection and thus without sex many marriages would be just a sham. Do these people really know that there are marriages that prosper even when the couples stop having sexual intercourse? Marriage can prosper when there is something that is beyond the control of the couples that stops them from making love, but the truth is that their relationship is almost splitting apart. Scientists have also tried to point out the differences between anal penetration and opposite sex intercourse. If really gay love was the same as straight love, then gay marriage would be able to achieve some of the societal goals of marriage such as giving birth. Biologically, it is evident that straight marriage couples treat sex as the foundation for their marriage and exclusive sharing and commitment. Marriage does not mean that you just decide to live together or enjoy other’s company in order to overcome the challenges of loneliness. Conclusion If anal penetration can satisfy all needs of marriage then I stand a chance to be corrected. According to Christianity, there is nothing creepy about anal sex. Homosexual sex cannot support the most important institution of our society the same way heterosexuality does. Lastly, I don’t think there is any chance to start arguing about the issue of whether gay love is similar to straight love. The answer is simply no and there is no time when gay love (anal penetration) will be similar to straight love (penile-vaginal intercourse). References Botelho, Greg. (2014, May 11). “FAA Official: Drone, Jetliner Nearly Collided Over Florida.” CNN. Retrieved on 28 July, 2014 from http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/travel/unmanned-drone-danger/ Crowley, M. (2014, June 2). “Obama Didn’t Negotiate With ‘Terrorists’ for Bergdahl.” Time. Retrieved on 28th July, 2014 from http://time.com/2809612/bowe-bergdahl-obama-taliban/ Stephen, W. H. (2014). Can gay love really be straight?A reply to Mark Joseph Stern, 38(2). From: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/07/can-gay-love-really-be-straight-2 Read More

The Florida incident is just one of the few reported cases regarding drone accidents. These new inventions are more harmful than they appear. One of the shocking revelations about drones is that they vary in size and the most recent modifications are meant to make them as small as real-life insects such as flies and mosquitoes. While this may solve the issue of accidents, it sparks a new concern about privacy. The problem here is that once the invention is out and hits the market, these small drones might be used to spy on people’s private lives, or get into the wrong hands and be used to breach security codes of conduct.

People will no longer be at ease knowing that these artificial insects might me posing in their ways as they sleep, take showers, or discuss overly sensitive matters. To add to these, and as was seen in the Iraqi War, drones were used to target terrorist bases, and used to launch attacks. The reason they were used is because they are automatic, and are remotely controlled. Again, they are hardest to track, move very fast, are cheaper to maintain, and are very accurate compared to human-controlled warplanes.

The problem arises in that in being remotely controlled; such loaded drones can easily collide with planes or buildings and cause multiple disasters. This also makes sense in that any machine is susceptible to mechanical failures and if these affected the drones, they end up crashing on human habitats, leaving destruction in their wake. While this technology is meant to be for the good of humanity, it drags its own challenges along. This is so because people will own them privately, and that creates a channel for their misuse.

For instance, what would happen if an armed drone is possessed by terrorists, or if malicious-minded persons hack into the drone control systems and launch attacks on human populations? How about so many people owning drones such that they fill the skies, making both skies and land vulnerable to disasters at all times? Generally, it is sufficient to state that while this technology is promising in terms of effectiveness, it has not been properly evaluated and is therefore dangerous to the human race.

Evaluation Ruling out this technology is impossible at this point in time. This is so because apart from many states possessing them, some nations such as the US, the UK, Israel, China, and Russia are producing their own drones. One of the potential resolutions to this emerging problem would be installing international standards to guard the use of drones. This can be done through humanitarian organizations such as the UN. There could be policies such as limiting drones to federal authorities only, setting different flying heights for drones and other aerial vehicles, banishing war drones from flying over human habitats, and installation of detect-and-repel mechanisms on both planes and drone so that they do not collide in mid-air.

Individuals should not be allowed to own destructive drones, and for those who own any type of drone, they should be monitored by laws similar to the firearm laws. Finally, drones should not be allowed to carry weapons of mass destruction such as atomic bomb or chemical artillery. Conclusion As the analysis reveals, the virility of drone use has begun generating problems in its early stage, and therefore calls for immediate action before it turns to a nightmare invention. This does not imply that the drones should not be used, but owing to their affordability, size, lethality, and popularity, they lay exposed to misuse.

As such, measures should be put in place to ensure that privacy is not breached, safety is not overlooked, and that only responsible hand controls the tiny birds. Crowley, M. (2014, June 2). “Obama Didn’t Negotiate With ‘Terrorists’ for Bergdahl.” Time. Retrieved on 28th July, 2014 from http://time.com/2809612/bowe-bergdahl-obama-taliban/ Summary of article Crowley wrote this article following the “exchange” of five Taliban (terrorists) with captured United States soldier, Bowe Berghal.

Read More