# data[].attributes.body
1.  Unmanned aircraft system (UAS)  - includes unmanned aircraft and all of its components .

2.COAs - Short for certificates of authorization, which are approvals to fly UAVs domestically granted by the FAA under existing rules.

3.Gyroscope - It measures the rate of rotation of the UAV and helps keep the craft balanced correctly with respect to yaw, pitch and roll.

# data[].attributes.body
1. http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones.

2.“Libya: The Real U.S. Drone War”; http://www.wired.com/danger room/2011/10/predator-libya/

3.Civilian contractors play key role in U.S. drone operations”; http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/29/world/la-fg-drones-civilians-20111230

4.“Drones for Human Rights”; http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/opinion/drones-for-human-rights.html.

# data[].attributes.body
Q1 Why are drones considered future of warfare rather than future of world ?

Ans - Drones are considered future of warfare because technological advantages they offer can best be exploited in situation of war , such as drones can replace humans for survielence , droping things , being unnoticed while flying and other stuff which can best be utilized in a war scenario.

Q2. Is it safe to give heavy artillery to Drones?

Ans. At present drones are being operated by a human operator from remote area so this is quite safe right now , but for future better technologies will be developed before making them completely uninterfered by humans

Q3. Should Drones be given full authority rather then them being controlled by humans ?

Ans. Its a controversial question , it would be safer if we do not give them full authority and it will be a bit less safe and much more accurate, convenient and effective if we make them autonomous.

# data[].attributes.headline
Suggestions for improvement in technology: Rishabh Thakur

# data[].attributes.subject
Suggestions for improvement in technology: Rishabh Thakur

# data[].attributes.body
The main issue arising with the drones is that we have to rewrite our existing regulations regarding their uses, specifically civil usage. From the article by Clarke and Moses, we have a framework for evaluation of future regulations. The metric consists of following points:

1. Clarity in the regulations, not leaving room for ambiguities.

2. Their should be transparency followed in the processes followed by regulators.

3. New regulations should reflect the will of all stakeholders.

4. The new regime should be comprehensive and all relevant aspects of drone usage should be taken care of.

5. The regime should be one that can be enforced and complied with easily.

6. There should be a system of periodic review as the technologies are changing at a rapid pace.

There is also the issue of military drones. This usage demands a significant change in rules of warfare.

In modern warfare it has become increasingly difficult to differentiate between civilians and combatants. The rules of war thus should reflect this change of scenarios and should be updated keeping drones in mind. The parties making use of drones in conflicts should first gather irrefutable intelligence against the targets before making any move thus to avoid collateral damage

# data[].attributes.body
Cyborgism- A cyborg is defined as a being with both biological and artificial parts. It is a term that was coined during 1960s in discussions over the advantages of use of self regulating human-machine systems. Some people have also expressed there reservations regarding the use of pacemakers as well, considering them to be a part of cyborgism, opposing any sort of alteration to the human body.

Public Safety- It is a wide ranging term that encompasses a wide variety of threats like fires, law and order issues and public health is also often included in it.

Regulation- Regulations are issued by government department and agencies to carry out the legislation passed regarding various activities in the parliament of a country.

# data[].attributes.body
ACLU. Protecting privacy from aerial surveillance: recommendations for government use of drone aircraft. American Civil Liberties Union; 2011. December 2011, at:  https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/  protectingprivacyfromaerialsurveillance.pdf

ACLU. Status of domestic drone legislation in the states. American Civil Liberties Union; 2014. 22 January 2014, at:  https://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/status- domestic-drone-legislation-states.

ALPA. Code of ethics. Air Line Pilots Association International; 2001. Undated but apparently of 2001, at: http://www.alpa.org/  Home/WhoWeAre/CodeofEthics/tabid/2262/Default.aspx.

AMA. National model aircraft safety code. Academy of Model Aeronautics; 2013. Undated but apparently of 2013, at: http://  www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.PDF.

CASA. Differences between Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and model aircraft. Civil Aviation Safety Authority; 2013e. Undated but presumably of 2013, at: http://www.casa.gov.au/  scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc¼ PC_100375

GAO. Unmanned aircraft systems: measuring progress and addressing potential privacy concerns would facilitate integration into the national airspace system. US General Accountability Office; 2012. September 2012, GAO-12-981, at:  http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/648348.pdf.

Singer PW, Lin J. Baby steps: the drone industry’s code of conduct skips over key questions. The Atlantic. At: http://www.  theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/baby-steps-the- drone-industrys-code-of-conduct-sidesteps-key-questions/  260010/;19 July 2012.

# data[].attributes.headline
Methods of data collection: Rishabh Thakur

# data[].attributes.subject
Methods of data collection: Rishabh Thakur

# data[].attributes.body
The data was collected using various methods.

The methods consisted of referring to the websites of various journals, referring to books in library as well as discussions with friends.

# data[].attributes.headline
Questions arising from the article : Rishabh Thakur

# data[].attributes.subject
Questions arising from the article : Rishabh Thakur

# data[].attributes.body
There are various questions that arise after a detailed reading of the posted article.

1. What is the information that the authors are trying to convey through this article?

- The authors are informing us about the various threats and problems that have arisen due to the increasing use of drone. They also intend to inform about the various regulatory regimes regimes for aviation around the world. They finally suggest the qualities that an ideal regulation should have so that drones can also come under its purview.

2.What are the threats posed by drones as per the authors?

- Most obvious threat is due to drones crashing and causing direct physical harm to life and property. There is also the risk of poor piloting when the airspace is crowded with drones and there is interference in the limited bandwidth. This will arise due to the fact that the pilot depends on the data received from the drone. An out of control drone can surprise drivers and pilots and cause accidents. Today, drones are a major risk to privacy as these can be used to spy on people and trends indicate that the size of drones is becoming smaller and smaller and they are becoming tougher to detect.

3.Why has the need for rewriting rules and regulation risen?

- The authors in their assessment of various rules and regulation at various levels. On the international level ICAO rules do not mention drones anywhere and leave the task of regulating them to respective national authorities. The authors further examine three national and regional regulations of Australia, the USA and the European Union. The authors conclude that current regulations may work well with the larger drones but as smaller drones emerge the problems may get compounded. The authors thus urge the ICAO specifically to bring in regulations as many countries with increasing drone usage are waiting for directions from the ICAO.

# data[].attributes.body
1. In farming, infrared and aerial technology can be used to keep check on growth of plants and irrigation in very large fields and decision can be taken about fertilizing and watering.

2.In construction, to build higf structures where human labours face difficulty to reach, Drones can act as AERIAL CONSTRUCTOR and can easily reach any locatin.

3. In journalism, drones can be used to capture scenes which would make the process of covering news easiee than present cameras.

4.In relief ,during disasters like wildfires or earthquake, drones can be used to map the damaged region very quickly so relief team can go there as early as possible.

5.In fighting crimes, Police departments are using drones for surveillance and protection.

6. In sports, coaches are using drones to watch game of players in games like ski and snowboarding which help players to improve their performance.

The above uses are positive and profitable uses of drones which are in practice

# data[].attributes.body
Our future with Drones

Drones are the future of modern warfare but they have been with longer than most of us realize . During the First World War UAVs were launched to serve as target practice for artillery and anti-aircraft training. Since there is nothing as effective as war to spur military research and development, the ‘technology rush’ of the Second World War led to rapid progress in drone design. Hitler’s scientists experimented with unmanned aircraft , which gave  them tactical advantage . After which countries started to take interest in drones and as a result BAE TARANIS and J-UCAS were first prototype drones developed . Now we have done advancements in this field  from weather monitoring , agriculture , commerce and mainly in warfare .

Today drones can do anything from tracking target to attacking them , can fly for days without getting noticed by radars and all this can happen without any human casualties . Recently surveillance drones played a key role in tracking down Bin-Laden .Drones are leading attacks on ISIS  and other terrorist groups In other fields too they are replacing . humans  , in weather monitoring they can ease out the work of storm chasers , can help us to predict weather much more earlier and accurately.

We are developing more and more in this field ,  governments are spending billions of dollars in this regard and results are phenomenal  , in coming future drones will completely replace fighter planes and will not require any human intervention whatsoever that is they will grow smarter .

Surely this is our Future in Modern warfare .

# data[].attributes.headline
Rishabh Thakur - Summary to Article posted earlier

# data[].attributes.subject
Rishabh Thakur - Summary to Article posted earlier

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Israel is the world's biggest exporter of military drones, used around the world for everything from surveillance to precision rocket attacks on speeding cars in remote locales. Israel's drone program hasn't stirred as much controversy as its American counterpart, but not because their targeted killings are any less fatal.

# data[].attributes.headline
Drones - Future of Warfare(Pranjul Purohit)

# data[].attributes.subject
Drones - Future of Warfare(Pranjul Purohit)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since President Obama took office, the use of and hype surrounding drones has greatly increased. Obama has conducted more than three times as many drone strikes per year compared to his predecessor in the White House.[1] The increase use of drones points to a potential revolution in warfare, or at least a shift in the perspective of how wars will be fought in the future. As robotics expert P.W. Singer argues, "the introduction of unmanned systems to the battlefield doesn't change simply how we fight, but for the first time changes who fights at the most fundamental level. It transforms the very agent of war, rather than just its capabilities."[2]

The three major reasons drones are seen as the future of warfare are: they remove the risk to our soldiers, they make fewer mistakes than other weapons platforms, and technology will continue to improve such that drones become even more precise, efficient, and infallible in the future, thus rendering less precise, efficient and fallible human forms of war obsolete. Drones are thus seen as marking "a step forward in humanitarian technology," and viewed as "a weapon of choice for future presidents, future administrations, in future conflicts and circumstances of self-defense and vital national security of the United States."[3]

Yet, there has been much criticism of these assertions. Journalists challenge the claim that there are diminished civilian deaths from drone strikes, while just war scholars suggest that drones loosen the moral restraints on the use of force and legal scholars grapple with the relation between drones and international law.[4] Notwithstanding these ethical and legal challenges, and despite what advocates say about their place in the future of armed combat, drones are, like any weapons platform, inherently limited in what they can do.

In this brief article, I make three claims to contextualize the idea that drones are the future of war to shed light on the circumscribed role they might play in the foreseeable future. First, that drones are an improvement - in terms of providing surveillance capabilities and satisfying the rules of war - compared to previous technology. Their technical advantages (loitering capacity, removal of risk to pilots, and precision) make them an important addition to any military arsenal. Second, however, drones are nevertheless limited in their potential. While perhaps the best option to fight Al Qaeda, they will not, due to their technical and tactical limitations, fully replace weapons with greater destructive and evasive capabilities because they are not equipped to respond to all scenarios within the subset of international crises. Third, the extent to which drones are the weapon of the future, they will not, despite the imagination of some pundits, remove entirely the human element from the future of war. Rather, humans, despite the hype surrounding drones, remain an essential piece of the future of war, and are subject to the inevitable risks associated with war.
Technical Advantages of Drones
The advantages of drones compared to other military options are well publicized, and fall into two categories.[5] In terms of surveillance, drones are capable of slipping across international borders with relative ease without putting human personnel at risk. Their ability to loiter over targets allows them to observe "patterns of life" to provide surveillance data 24/7, identify and track potential targets, and determine the best time to strike to avoid civilian casualties.[6] This leads to the second advantage: drones are claimed to be highly effective at satisfying the rules of war.

In terms of lethal use of force, the pinpoint accuracy of their missiles and computer software that models the blast area of each proposed strike greatly reduces collateral damage compared to other weapons systems, and potentially could even eliminate it. In the words of one proponent, drones provide a "limited, pinprick, covert strike" in order "to avoid a wider war."[7] Moreover, the removal of pilots from the zone of combat - drones are operated from a facility well removed from where the fighting takes place -arguably eliminates the threat to our soldiers and allows drone operators to make better targeting decisions because they do not fear for their own safety. All of this adds up to considerably diminished number of civilian casualties. According to one scholar, these advantages lead to an "ethical obligation" to employ drones instead of other more risky tactics. [8]

These advantages have, thus far, dictated the use of drones by the United States. Despite a UN Special Committee Review on drones in 2009, and two hearings hosted by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010 to discuss the moral and legal implications of drones, they have been the weapon of choice in Obama's "war on Al Qaeda." Yet, it is important to remember that this success in fighting terrorism should not be taken as evidence of drone effectiveness in all situations.
Tactical Limitations of Drones
Drones have tactical limitations, and will not likely completely replace, in the foreseeable future at least, other more conventional forms of weapons. Rather, they are best seen as one part of the military arsenal, the default choice in circumstances where their advantages can be exploited and their weaknesses cannot, but secondary choices in scenarios where their weaknesses limit their effectiveness. In this section, I point to three limitations of drones.

First, the effective usage of drones requires air dominance because drones operate at slow speeds compared to spy planes and fighter jets, and are relatively easy to shoot down. In all of the situations in which they have been deployed to kill discriminately they have only been used when they cannot be attacked by an opposing air force or substantial anti-aircraft system. For example, the U.S. has been flying drones into Pakistan and Yemen for years, having obtained tacit consent to do so from local governments. However, in Pakistan, increased incidents of alleged civilian casualties and friendly fire mistakes recently placed a temporary freeze on drone activity, as the U.S. seeks to normalize drone deployment with the Pakistani government. [9] Moreover, the Arab Spring has led to a transitional government in Yemen that threatens previous norms governing drone usage.

Even with aerial superiority, drones have limitations. While they have been successful in destabilizing Al Qaeda activities, leading Bin Laden, if we believe reports of his final weeks, to be afraid to traveling out in public because of the surveillance capacities of drones to track daily life-patterns, this surveillance requires a clear view from the skies. Terrorist cells have already begun to relocate to heavily forested areas where current drone surveillance technology cannot penetrate.[10] While limiting the range of terrorist mobility, the effectiveness of drones to observe, track and kill alleged terrorists is not unlimited. Perhaps in the future, there will be bird-sized drones that can penetrate the forests - reports suggest such technology is being developed - but for the moment, safe-havens beyond the vision of drones exist.

Another way to control the air space is through using conventional air force to first obtain control over the skies, thus allowing drones free reign to maneuver. In the Libya campaign, drones were only used after more conventional forces achieved aerial domination. And even then, they were used in conjunction with fighter planes and armed rebel forces to achieve the goal of overthrowing the Gadhafi regime. They were thus not the dominant tactic, but one of many pieces of the military puzzle.[11] This limitation points to one of the reasons why drones have not been employed - despite the call of some scholars - to create a no-fly zone in Syria to stop the killing of civilians by the Assad regime.[12] Quite simply, they could not succeed without more robust military force being employed first to control the skies. The risk of doing so, however, is escalation to a wider war, which would erode the advantages of drones cited in the previous section.

This leads to the second limitation: drones are ineffective at inducing recalcitrant states with anti-aircraft capacity - such as Syrian or Iran - to cooperate with the international community. Despite claims made by drone proponents that the United States can undertake strikes even without tacit consent of a host country, this may not be the most effective or prudent course of action.[13] If a drone strike in these countries would be taken as an act of war by the local governments, then the risk is an escalation in violence and a wider, unpredictable war. Moreover, given the penchant for drones strike to serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, [14] it may be more prudent to limit, as the Obama administration has done, the deployment of drones in certain areas (such as Somalia) in order to avoid proliferating insurgent-type wars in new battlegrounds. [15]

Third, drones are very effective at killing targets, assuming the identity of the deceased can be effectively identified, but this may not always be the best choice in the long-term war against Al Qaeda. Killing a target eliminates the opportunity to obtain additional information, either through interrogation of the subject or recovery of relevant documents or electronics.[16] Rather, it may be of greater strategic value to employ alternative means, such as the special-ops mission to kill Bin Laden in which drones played a surveillance role only, in order to recover intel and identify deceased targets.
Risk and the Human Element
While science fiction buffs will want to claim that unmanned drones are the future of armed conflict, the reality is that drones require sustained human presence: at the in-region bases from which they are launched, at the remote bases from which they are piloted, in the combat zone where informants provide (reliable?) information on potential targets, in the intelligence community where chatter-data helps to contextualize the decision to undertake targeted killings, and in the upper echelons of government where the target list is generated. At the time of writing, each drone deployed in the air requires hundreds of humans to operate and guide.[17] While drones have been lauded as the future of war because they remove the risk to pilots and reduce collateral damage, the risk to the humans who operate them is not altogether eliminated. In this section, I want to delineate five areas of risk that should be considered when thinking about drones as the future of war.

First, while removing pilots from the risk of death by enemy fire, drone operators incur significant levels of risk related to PTSD. Numerous studies have suggested drone operators suffer from the same kinds of conflict-zone trauma as other military members, despite not being in the line of fire. [18] These negative effects, and their long-term consequences, need to be understood before the claims that drones represent the cleaner face of future war guide public opinion. Second, drones may be piloted from a distance, but they must be launched from areas close to their zone of deployment, such as Afghanistan. These areas are not safe-zones. The bases from which drones are launched, whether manned by soldiers, intelligence operatives or contractors, are at are at risk of attack. A prime example of such risk is the suicide bombing in 2009 at the US Forward Operating Base Chapman in Afghanistan that killed seven CIA employees involved in the drone program.[19] Third, because the effectiveness of drones requires knowledge about would-be terrorists, there is need for informants, and their handlers, to provide accurate information about terrorist movement. These individuals carry out their tasks at great personal risk. In short, drones, which can be shot down without the loss of the pilot's life, still require in-field as well as out-field operators, each of whom is subject to risk, whether deeply psychological or physical.

Fourth, despite the belief that drones are more infallible than other technologies, mistakes still happen. Incidents of friendly fire casualties have resulted in the deaths of U.S. as well as Pakistani soldiers, the latter fueling a feud between the U.S. and Pakistan that limited, for a time, drone operations, thus giving Al Qaeda a vital respite. Finally, it is important to note the risk to non-combatants - both in the zone of operation and elsewhere - who are at risk because of drone strikes. Regarding the former, with each drone strike, despite the U.S. government's best attempts to limit or eliminate non-combattant casualties, civilians are constantly at risk of being 'in the wrong place at the wrong time'. Reports of civilian casualties, whether due to error or as legitimized collateral damage, abound. [20] In addition, because drone strikes require local informants, innocents are at risk insofar as Al Qaeda leadership, struggling to identify who is an informant, decides to accuse and execute civilians on trumped-up charges of spying to set an example.[21] While such risks may (dubiously?) satisfy the just war principle of double effect, it may also lead to a second risk: increased terrorist recruitment, which could result in retaliatory attacks that put innocents outside the zone of operations at risk. In short, the effectiveness of drones, which give the illusion of success in fighting terrorism through the use of force, may actually perpetuate the cycle of violence.
Conclusion
Drones will inevitably be part of the future of warfare insofar as the advantages they provide can be exploited by political leaders. However, their place in the future of armed conflict will be constrained by their disadvantages and limitations. To the extent that drones are subject to tactical limitations, and thus subordinate to other weapons options and tactics that are less discriminate, the impact of their advantages is limited. It is therefore important to see drones part of a wide array of surveillance and military options, not a replacement for these alternatives.

-
Prof. Daniel Bruntstetter is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the School of Social Sciences in the University of California. His current research interests include early modern political thought, just war theory, drone warfare, French political thought in the Enlightenment, and immigration in France. His new book project, tentatively titled 'US Presidents and the Just War Tradition,' examines ways in which US presidents have understood and implemented the ethical principles of the just war. He is also co-director of UCI's Program in Conflict Analysis and Resolution, and a faculty advisor to the Olive Tree Initiative.
[20] "Effective Counterinsurgency".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since President Obama took office, the use of and hype surrounding drones has greatly increased. Obama has conducted more than three times as many drone strikes per year compared to his predecessor in the White House.[1] The increase use of drones points to a potential revolution in warfare, or at least a shift in the perspective of how wars will be fought in the future.

# data[].attributes.headline
Impact on public safety and privacy : Rishabh Thakur

# data[].attributes.subject
Impact on public safety and privacy : Rishabh Thakur

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjABahUKEwiv2Yv-7ojIAhXGGJQKHbiJAcI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.atmel.com%2F2014%2F08%2F08%2F18-awesome-ways-drones-are-used-today%2F&usg=AFQjCNFD1l-Z6Fymi9RZGB2BhO_GgqWtXw&sig2=TDcjzyipsK8D6eab02eY8g

# data[].attributes.headline
Present Applications of DRONES: (Aishwary)

# data[].attributes.subject
Present Applications of DRONES: (Aishwary)

# data[].attributes.body
Farming is tough, and drones are making it easier. With their aerial abilities, farmers can now see if their irrigation systems are working, how their crops are growing, even see if any of the plants are sick by using infrared technology. This enables farmers to make critical decisions about where and when to fertilize, plant or water. Though these observations and improvements may only equate to cents per acre, when practiced over thousands of acres, that can translate into much greater amounts.

Weaving high-rise structures: A team of researchers at ETH Zurich recently programmed drones to build and weave high-rise structures. While the test was relatively simple, the idea of choreographing drones to act as aerial construction workers is pretty fascinating. In spider-like fashion, the drone spools cable behind it as it zips between supports. It is weaving a structure high above where ordinary building equipment can easily reach. The team is also teaching drones to build towers from foam bricks. “There is no physical connection with the ground, so they can move construction elements to any location, and fly in and around existing structures,” explained Federico Augugliaro of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich.

Covering the news. When it comes to reporting, there’s nothing more important than catching the action as it happens. In what may become the next trend in journalism, students across the country are already learning how drones could help them be better reporters, and some reporters have already begun using UAVs to capture the day’s news.

Putting out wildfires. Drones are becoming an incredibly useful tool for firefighters, especially those who have the seemingly impossible task of putting out wildfires. Not only are the aircrafts being used to spot the fire and tracking its movement, but they can actually fight fires as well, ultimately keeping people out of harm’s way. Take for instance 2007′s Southern California wildfires, UAVs equipped with infrared sensors penetrated walls of smoke to relay information about the size of the blaze. After Haiti’s devastating earthquake in 2010, the Air Force dispatched its “Global Hawk” drone to map the damage in Port-Au-Prince so NGOs could establish target areas for their relief work. And even more recently, drones were deployed after Super Typhoon Haiyan hit the Philippines. Unlike helicopters, which can take up to an hour to arrive on the scene and gather information, drones are operational within three minutes.

Helping in disaster relief. “Drones don’t just end human life, they also save it,” tech journalist Matthew Harwood previously told Security Management Magazine. As extreme weather becomes increasingly severe, technology will play a critical role in monitoring and response and the Air Force, NASA, and several NGOs all agree that drones are becoming indispensable in disaster relief operations. Natural disasters and other times of emergency call for timely distribution of medication and aid. Fortunately, drones can make this more efficient. A company called Matternet is using drones to drop food and drugs right where they’re needed in remote African villages. Drones have the ability to ensure access to basic needs in places where roads become impassable in rainy seasons, or where they might not exist at all.

Fighting crime in the neighborhood. Police departments across the country are buying drones that they can use for surveillance and other protection-related activities. Even the FBI is using them.

Getting into the sports action. Not only is it entertaining to watch games from above, it also can provide coaches a unique and valuable perspective on how their players are doing. Sports teams are already doing just that, using the UAVs to develop everything from game strategy to analyzing athlete performance. Drones have even made an appearance at the Olympics, where they were used to film ski and snowboarding events in Sochi.