Technology Solution for Homeland Security

Technology Solution for Homeland Security

Part 1

Sedating airline passengers to prevent hijacking

Hijacking in airlines is rare, but it sometimes takes place. To ensure the safety of the passengers and the airline staff, the airline company has to put in place some measures. Sedating passengers can be considered an option to prevent hijacking, but it’s not a very good idea. Passengers have a right to be safe throughout the flight; sedating them compromises that right. Sedating passengers is going against their safety. Nobody wants to travel while sedated. Being alert helps in feeling safe. So, sedation against a person’s will is not correct. People have the right to choose what they want while traveling. Sedatives are mainly used in operating rooms; sedating a passenger is turning them into a patient.

Sedation has effects on the body; some can be short-term while others can be long-term, mainly if the medicine is not prescribed. Passengers’ health is critical, and they should descend as healthy as they boarded. Some of the side effects of sedation are headache, drowsiness, and nausea (Dhingra et al., 2015). Those effects may last hours after the flight, making it difficult for the passengers to arrive at their destination or run their errands. Passenger sedation will mean that people who make frequent flights will be more sedated hence posing more danger to their health. Some people die due to sedation, so sedating passengers increases that possibility. Sedating passengers will mean children to be sedated too; sedation is more dangerous to children than adults.

There are other effective methods to prevent airline hijacking without endangering the life of the passengers. They include scanning both the passengers and their luggage, using police dogs at the airport to maintain security, surveillance cameras in the airport and plane, and keeping armed police officers in every plane (Avc & Civelek, 2017). I believe these are the measures that airline companies should implement.

Part 2

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate’s budget

Congress cut the science and technology budget, but there must be a reason for drastically doing it. I think Congress cut the budget because there was not much research happening in science and technology that year (Roback et al., 2019). Maybe other upcoming projects in other departments needed more attention and money. Cutbacks can influence the decision; if the government and funders cut back on their support in science and technology, Congress is forced to reduce the budget. The government only cuts its support if the budget has a deficit.

As a president, I would not sign the bill presented by Congress, but I would veto the bill because science and technology are crucial in every country. For a country to be able to compete with other countries, it needs science and technology. I would prefer that the budget be increased since science and technology drive a country. Looking back to the years when technology and science were not as improved or embraced as today, I think we should never trade the position of science and technology. There are always problems to be solved in science and technology (Shelby, 2020). The Discovery of new things happens each day, and researchers need full support from the government and Congress to keep their heads on the work. Keeping science and technology competitive with the rest of the world needs funding which tends to be expensive; hence not a good idea to cut the budget of the science and technology department. S&T helps in knowledge creation and utilization to ensure human prosperity and solutions for human lives.

In conclusion, the proposal by Congress to cut the budget of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate must have had substantial grounds driving the bill. However,  this department is essential in a country, and therefore, its rejection would be most appropriate.

References

Avc, S., & Civelek, M. E. (2017). Legal aspects of aircraft hijacking. Journal of International Trade, Logistics, and Law, 3(2), 58-64.

Dhingra, L., Ahmed, E., Shin, J., Scharaga, E., & Magun, M. (2015). Cognitive effects and sedation. Pain Medicine, 16(suppl_1), S37-S43.

Roback, H., Kuehn, T., & Porter, A. L. (2019). 14. Congress And The Science Budget. In Science, Technology, and National Policy (pp. 297-315). Cornell University Press.

Shelby, J. E. (2020). Introduction to glass science and technology. Royal Society of Chemistry.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

Part 1

Choose 1 of the following ideas. Argue its feasibility, or lack thereof, and justify your reasoning. Use 300 words to make your point.

Sedate airline passengers to prevent hijacking.

Solve the communications interoperability problem by requiring all responders to buy their radios from one manufacturing company.
Attach transponders to foreign visitors to prevent them from becoming illegal aliens and potentially forming sleeper terrorist cells.
Review and comment on at least 2 other posts.

Part 2

In 2012, Congress presented a bill to the President proposing to cut the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate’s budget to $398 million. Of that amount, more than half was earmarked to maintain laboratories and other mandatory spending. That left $106 million for discretionary research and development, amounting to an 80% cut over the previous fiscal year.

Use 300 words to answer the following questions:

Why do you think Congress cut the Science and Technology (S&T) budget so drastically?
As President, would you sign or veto the bill that was presented by Congress? Why or why not?