Drones and UAVs - Airspace Law and the Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Drones and UAVs - Airspace Law and the Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

An unmanned aerial vehicle, also known as a drone, is usually an aircraft with no one person, crew or passenger on board.drone UAVs, like other airborne vehicles, are part of a larger unmanned system. A military UAV is a component of the United States military's unmanned aerial vehicle system, which also include a Ground Control and Data acquisition System, or a remotely piloted system. The Remotely Piloted Air Vehicles or RPAS is a subset of UAVs and uses the same hardware and software that a UAV uses but allows for the user to control the aircraft from a distance.

Many private organizations, news agencies and the military are using drones in a variety of capacities.drone drone Many people think of drones as being used by the police and the military to spy on crime, but these are actually two very different purposes. The police use these to watch over the streets of major cities. The military has been using unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs to conduct operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, as well as conducting exercises in Nevada, Texas and California. The federal government has also said that it will use UAVs in disaster response and even to protect the public from a deadly virus outbreak.

As the debate over drone strikes continues in Congress, there are some members of congress that want to legalize drone strikes.drone drone They believe it is okay for the United States to engage in extrajudicial drone strikes anywhere in the world when it involves international terrorism. Although the president cannot technically order a drone strike, he can authorize the military to carry out such strikes in his name if needed. Should the United States carry out such strikes against designated targets in countries with which it is not at war, it could open the way for other countries to engage in revenge attacks against the United States. Such actions could further delegitimize the U.S. leadership in the world stage, further hindering American diplomacy.

Some argue that the United States should not be allowed to attack anyone it wants when it involves national security. The question that begs to be answered here is whether or not theserones are weapons or not. It appears the answer is no because no one can argue that these UAVs have more capabilities than the aircraft they are supposed to replace. In fact, it may be argued that they are more advanced weaponry disguised as sophisticated aircraft. Still, there are limitations to the abilities of such aircraft.

Still, if the UAVs can't hit a target then how can they help win a war? Some argue that the real issue here isn't whether or not the United States can engage in drone strikes on enemy soil, but rather whether or not the United States should be allowed to engage in such strikes where there is a likelihood of civilian casualties. Military strategists maintain that the United States has a responsibility to take precautions when it comes to civilian populations. If a UAV is shot down, it needs to be assumed that innocent civilians will die. This is particularly true in war zones where there are many potential victims.

In fact, military and commercial ventures are seeking to construct UAVs that are capable of loitering over high-risk areas for extended periods of time. There is nothing that will stop these vehicles from loitering over a high-risk area for extended periods of time unless there is a mechanical breakdown. UAVs will only fly in military airspace if there is a mechanical failure. Therefore, the legal implications are that the United States government has the right to engage in UAV aerial refueling operations, whether or not they are within the operational domain.