Defending Against Drones 368
theodp writes "The US has not had to truly think about its air defense since the Cold War. But as America embraces the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, Newsweek says it's time to consider how our greatest new weapon may come back to bite us. Smaller UAVs' cool, battery-powered engines make them difficult to hit with conventional heat-seeking missiles. And while Patriot missiles can take out UAVs, at $3 million apiece such protection carries a steep price tag, especially if we have to deal with $500 DIY drones."
Defense? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Defense? (Score:5, Funny)
Still cheap drones might be useful for attackers already in the USA. I wonder how many patriot (or similar) banks are deployed in the USA.
But if people are willing to die, it's going to be hard to stop them if they're not too stupid. The drone then is the human+payload+vehicle.
Maybe they should just spend a few millions getting those young angry guys laid... That should de-drone a few of them. A "bird" in each arm might be worth 72 houris in wherever-land.
They have *already* crossed an ocean (Score:4, Informative)
In fact a private drone (from a university) has already done that years ago, across the Atlantic. It certainly cost a lot more than $500, but components have gone down in price quite a lot.
My crappy EasyStar ($60 of glorified styrofoam) can fly for almost an hour with a brushless motor on a 11V, 1200mA.h battery that costs around $30. It wouldn't be too hard in the near future to build a drone covered with lightweight solar cells, and enough batteries to stay airborne during the night. The EasyStar can already easily accommodate 200g of payload, for a total weight of one kg or two.
With an Arduino it's already super easy to build a drone with GPS guiding. But even if GPS is jammed it's not much harder to implement inertial positioning, and beyond that cell phone relay trilateration to lock in on a target. Each of those features can be had in a 1g integrated package.
Those are still vulnerable to military jamming, but at a significant cost to the target. There are other ways around this: sun tracking has not been done AFAIK but it shouldn't be too hard to do. We have *slightly* better clocks than mariners of the old time and that's what they used. At night, star tracking is also a possibility. Then some DIY drone people are experimenting with magnetic sensors, which is what migratory birds use.
In conclusion, drones are gonna be a problem, and I suspect states are going to try to ban them, to obviously no effect since all it takes are cell phone components (lithium batteries, microcontrollers, GPS receivers), some styrofoam and a few cheap power electronics components (brushless motors, controllers, and servos). Oh and duct tape. They better ban duct tape quick.
Re:They have *already* crossed an ocean (Score:5, Interesting)
I can think of a zillion things to hit just flying by line of sight.
You could target oil tankers, hell even oil refineries.
What's the propaganda value of head-shotting the statue of liberty?
Re:They have *already* crossed an ocean (Score:5, Insightful)
If you send thousands or more you can do far more damage, but then the USA will more easily figure out where they are coming from and bomb your country to bits. If they feel like it (e.g. the drones aren't coming from Russia or China or their allies), they might even get permission from the UN first.
If you're a terrorist that has already got into the USA, such drones aren't really necessary if you want to cause a lot of damage, especially if you can already somehow get quantities of high explosives that a drone can use (if you can't, your drones aren't going to do much damage - just kill a few people). Might as well just put the bomb in a shopping mall, or cinema, or bus, or subway. Not too difficult to walk into such places and get out (you might even be able to disguise yourself or plant it on another person/vehicle).
What small cheap drones might be good for is trying to harass the USA out of your country. e.g. they are already in your country and possibly have already bombed it. In these scenarios it's not so simple to just walk in to a US military site, plant the bomb and leave to do it again another day. So that's where a drone might be useful.
Then the US Military will need to defend itself against such drones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you actually hit something of value with that tiny drone it's not going to do much really except maybe cause a few more oppressive/stupid laws to be passed.
I wonder how many true terrorists will read that and instantly be sold on the idea of low-cost drones...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
and while we're at it, remember, nobody actually said they were virgin women [youtube.com] (@4:30)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm glad someone posted this before me. :)
They were called "Fu-Go Weapons". 9,000 were launched. 1,000 were believed to have made it to the US. 300 were observed or found. Only one found hanging in a tree caused 6 people to die.
Those were pretty well planned, and actually had the ability to stay in the air for days. That's something a little RC airplane isn't going to do. As your fuel requirements increase, your lift requirements increase. Those increase th
Re:Defense? (Score:4, Funny)
The best defense is a good offense. You know who said that? Mel, the cook on "Alice".
- Ed Gruberman
Re: (Score:2)
And we all know how well that turned out for Ed...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
* WHOOSH* ... you missed.
Re:Defense? (Score:5, Interesting)
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
Re:Defense? (Score:4, Informative)
Yea, a lot of people go a bit nutty in their old age. You may want to check out what else Butler said:
In November 1934, Butler told the committee that a group of businessmen, backed by a private army of 500,000 ex-soldiers and others, intended to establish a fascist dictatorship. Butler had been asked to lead it, he said, by Gerald P. MacGuire, a bond salesman with Grayson M-P Murphy & Co. The New York Times reported that Butler had told friends that General Hugh S. Johnson, a former official with the National Recovery Administration, was to be installed as dictator. Butler said MacGuire had told him the attempted coup was backed by three million dollars, and that the 500,000 men were probably to be assembled in Washington, D.C. the following year. All the parties alleged to be involved, including Johnson, said there was no truth in the story, calling it a joke and a fantasy.[43]
Re: (Score:2)
Did you actually read the parent post? He mentioned the Business Plot already.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I skipped over that part, so I was under the impression that he was actually a rational person. My bad. If I had realized that he's the type who can honestly believe that a Secret Army of a half-million soldiers was ramping up to take over the US ... well, I'd probably have referred him to a psychiatrist instead.
Re:Defense? (Score:5, Informative)
If you read more about the Business Plot, you'd find out that the Congressional Committee that investigated it thought that the allegations were credible. However, for some strange reason the investigation soon stopped after names like duPont and JP Morgan started coming up. The standard historical interpretation of the Business Plot these days is that there was something there, and some of those industrialists wanted to do what Butler accused them of organizing, but that they hadn't gotten anywhere near the point where they could actually pull it off.
For instance, journalist John Spivak was able to get access to the committee's report in 1967, and this is what he found:
"MacGuire denied [Butler's] allegations under oath, but your committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made to General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization. This, however, was corroborated in the correspondence of MacGuire with his principle, Robert Sterling Clark, of New York City, while MacGuire was abroad studying the various form of veterans' organizations of Fascist character."
Re:Defense? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And, don't forget: ;^)
"We're from the gubbermint, and we're here to help you." For best effect, talk with a John Wayne drawl, and tack a "Pilgrim" to the end of the sentence.
Re:Defense? (Score:5, Funny)
Sigh, just another attempt to turn some simple engineering problem into politics.
I happen to have some experience in this area and I can say for certain that if there are no creeps on the floor, any wave of drones is easy to kill. I would start by erecting a line of towers with simple pellet guns, upgrading the weak points to snipers as necessary. Squirt towers will provide a layer of depth to your defence, but ideally you want a fully upgraded bash tower to take out ground creeps quickly enough that your guns can focus on the drones.
If you'll excuse me, I feel the need for just one more try...
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Good start. Interesting how the major network ‘news' seems to get it's funding from the military/big pharma complex. For an interesting look at the tangled webs we weave, google Adam Curtis. Check out all his work - it's not just the US, as such. It Felt Like a Kiss is latest - a must see, does focus on the US. Much of his work is available via the Internet Archive. Watch carefully- more than once... He makes you want to know more and so much more there is to know.
Re:OFFTOPIC! MOD THE FUCK DOWN (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's say you engage in a behaviour like eating sugary things (like gobbling up a huge amount of the world's resources and supporting evil regimes) that attracts bees and Wasps (terrorists, drones, etc.). Sure, you can spend PILES of money on insecticides (patriot missiles, TSA, etc.), or, you could simply stop engaging in the behaviour that attracts bees and wasps.
Duh. But people like you are greedy, lazy, and stupid, and can't live without their SUVs, McMansions, and daily intake of beef, sugar, and Salads in February, and so rather than change your behaviour, you would rather ramp up the insecticide production. Tards. Keep it up, and expect people to bomb the crap out of you. It's really very simple, almost Newtonian in structure.
Re:Defense? (Score:4, Insightful)
That is why the Soviets took over the world! Or at least control most of its finances, shove laws friendly to their business interests down the throat of pretty much every nation out there and have forward military bases in over 60% countries on the planet and spend more on offensive weaponry than the rest of the world combined ... oh wait!
The hysterical bullshit US war-mongers spew would be comical if it weren't so blood soaked.
Right after I finish watching the Ahmed Chelabi videos about the great big stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq all set to go off at 5 minutes notice.
On the contrary, I have pretty good idea, although the verbal feces here are all yours.
Oh so the Soviets invented the doctrine of "Disaster Capitalism" [amazon.com]. Clever Commie .... err... Capitalist bastards.
Hence the Great Tank Battle of Saigon where thousands of T-72 tanks of the Red Army squared off against the M48s of the US Armored Divisions with the sky above full of Soviet airmen dogfighting with US Air Force, with tactical nukes going off in the background ... uhm ... what?
Number of US Soldiers killed in the Vietnam War: 58,159. Number of Vietnamese killed: 1.3 million. Soviet citizens dead: 16 (that's six and ten since you are having obvious difficulties with numbers) ... who was invading whom, again?
Words of a religious fanatic. Capitalism is also a "poison" ideology that has been used to do countless acts of unspeakable evil.
So while I sometimes enjoy taunting raving lunatics such as you, I am not in the mood today. Go play by yourself in that delusional universe you've created for yourself.
Hey... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hey... bullets! (Score:3, Informative)
Not like they used to. Air burst rounds [wikipedia.org] will likely be the next iteration in the infantry arms race: Essentially a grenade that files in a flat trajectory and can detonate where ever you tell it to, such as "that line of sandbags, plus 1m" and then you aim above the sandbags.
They certainly will come in handy against your average "terrorist" armed with an AK-47, but once these types of guns are available to both sides of a conflict it will get real ugly. I certainly hope they remain a technology demonstra
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly hope they remain a technology demonstrator only by some gentlemans agreement.
Oh that holds out well in war. They can't even reasonably hold the Geneva Convention.
Arm your citizens... (Score:3, Informative)
In fact... this is exactly the sort of thing the 2nd amendment was written for. "The people" defending themselves from attack.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I should add: I've got no problem with teaching everyone to shoot. Mandatory gun training might save some lives currently lost to stupidity.
Training people to shoot has never been a problem. Giving stupid people guns, regardless of their training, is.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Mandatory retard killing would have taken out you and the parent post
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. Are we talking universal gun deprivation, or just the subjects of the crown?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Arm your citizens... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
A $500 RC plane isn't going to be carrying any kind of load that can do any real damage.
Sure, you can pack an RC plane with some C-4 and just fly it kamikaze style into something, but it still couldn't be much more C-4 than the amount needed to blow the lock off a door. Explosives have weight, and RC planes can't carry much extra weight. Given the imprecision of flying one of these things any distance whatsoever, I would think you'd have to carry a tremendous amount of explosives to be able to reliably ta
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would you think it would actually be easier for a drone to get through?
Because you can afford to swarm them. Do you know how much a Tu-95 bomber costs? Divide by $500, and you've got the number of toy flying bombs you might have to contend with instead. If you're spending tens of thousands to shoot each one down you're losing the war even if you're not taking any direct damage from the drones themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is ridiculous. The USA Democrats are certainly to the left of the Republicans, but I would suggest that they are to the right of any mainstream political party in Europe. But perhaps you can suggest any counter example?
Re: (Score:2)
That's not even mentioning the range. We fly drones in Afghanistan from Afghanistan. Where is somebody going to launch a drone attack on the United States from?
Mexico? Canada? Caribbean islands?
I'm sure there are a few targets inside the US that'd be reachable from non-US locations.
And there are middle grounds between "$100 RC planes" and "million dollar military hardware". I'm sure that, with access to a credit card with a good limit and commercially available / hobbyist parts you could put something useful together without too much heart-ache.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I dare to disagree, having some insight in the development of RC planes. Recently the engines of those little buzzers got really powerful, with cheap imports from China they also got very affordable. Model planes that carry some sort of ordnance are hardly impossible, planes that carry candy to "bomb" spectators with are already a staple of RC shows. Thrust-weight ratios beyond 1 are anything but a dream anymore (and of course made it into funny new acrobatic tricks). You can of course put this thrust
$500 drones are small (Score:2)
The EasyStar, the base for most DIY drone experiments, is a 1.3 m wide slab of styrofoam -- 700g worth of it. It doesn't have to fly at 30000 feet to be hard to shoot down. I doubt you could take that down at a few hundred feet, let alone a few thousand.
Re: (Score:2)
Your $500 drone isn't going to be very effective from 30k feet either, though. By the time it closes to a range that it can be combat effective at, it will pass nearby enough to several people who, if they had arms and a modicum of practice at the skeet range, would be able to have a chance at partially disabling it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's an incredibly bad idea. Compare terminal velocity and total energy on a .50 cal rifle round to typical calibers and you'll see why. Laser point defense would make more sense; using drones to fight drones makes even more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I would think small arms would be particularly effective, since such a cheap drone would likely fly low and slow...
Low and slow are both relative. If people start shooting at drones, drones will start shooting at people; having the advantage of high ground (barring space, the sky is the ultimate high ground) and size means that the drones will win. Drones will start dropping bundles of dronelets soon enough, as well. You have no hope of shooting down swarms of explosive drones the size of your hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tell your citizens that they're a really big threat and that you can offer them the solution in a gun barrel at a very nominal price and you're done.
Re:Arm your citizens... (Score:5, Informative)
The idea of hundreds of citizens firing UP INTO THE AIR trying to hit a drone scares the hell out of me... what goes up must come down, and the law of conservation of energy combine to make me think that the damage to those of us on the ground would probably be greater then what the drone could do... particularly since the drone would likely be too far above the shooters for a bullet to have any hope of finding it...
Min
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I smell a Mythbusters style investigation coming up to prove or disprove the theory.
Tinfoil hats for all citizens . . . (Score:4, Funny)
Tinfoil hats should protect everyone from falling bullets. At least according to what I read here about these wonderful inventions.
Probably.
You might want a set of tinfoil shoulder pads as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
He'd probably get shot, because his victims and anyone else around will be armed and able to protect themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
When everyone is armed, people behave in a different manner. Rape, robbery, and assaults tend to go down in areas which relax gun laws - while the same crimes increase in areas where more restrictive gun laws are enacted.
It's in your best interest to arm every citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever handled a rifle? (Score:3, Insightful)
You really put a lot of thought into this didn't you? No, the odds are far from "pretty good". There's a reason why people hunt flying birds with shotguns: the spray of pellets is much more likely to hit a fast-moving target than a single projectile, and while there are any number of people in the U.S. who are quite proficient with shotguns, only a
DOS WAR (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think any war of the last few decades have been? In iraq, they have old AK's, and RPGs.. We have Strykers, predators, and almost million dollar Humvees that they blow up with a few dollars of explosives and a discarded cell phone.
Re:DOS WAR (Score:4, Informative)
Actually smells like the SDI that precipitated the fall of the USSR.. only in reverse.
As long as we give billions of dollars to the military/security interests, to protect us against marginal or very distant threats, they, and the terrorists, win.
Re: (Score:2)
Destruction is easy (Score:3, Informative)
It's all about the tech (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that I can disable a $500 drone with little less than a portable radio, my laptop and a couple of bucks worth of radioshack equipment. Thing about the drones is that they TOO have weaknesses. And a safe, unbreakable, unhackable, wireless, remote control interface costs a LOT more than $500. And an EM emitter, or even just a remote jamming device, or in case of a wireguided or automated drone a laser to interfere with or destroy the optics seems like pretty easy to come by and cheap solutions.
And for those really high tech drones that can survive these kinds of odds. I'm sure we can spend a cheap stinger on. Why anyone would WANT to make the leap all the way to a patriot missile, made for smashing down objects the size of a spaceshuttle is beyond me.
Re:It's all about the tech (Score:5, Insightful)
Even high school students are dabbling in autonomous drones nowadays, and most research on autonomous vehicles is open and readily downloadable. Your jammer is not going to help too much if the drone knows what it's supposed to do without radio contact.
And you need to know there's a drone to jam a kilometer overhead in the first place.
Re:It's all about the tech (Score:5, Insightful)
Good luck with that. If I were designing one of those and my objective was to kill innocent people and/or disrupt a country's manufacturing/distribution infrastructure, all I need is a chip that will get it where it's going, run through a series of shape templates (a bus, train or transport truck or specific building, for example), then dive into it.
Easy, cheap, and no external control needed. Another plus: hardening such throw-away devices is usually easy and cheap. Example: Inertial navigation to target, flip on the video for a quick look-see, then hit whatever's closest. And you build lots and lots of 'em.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's all about the tech (Score:5, Interesting)
it depends on the drones
remote controlled DYI drones uses analog video (easy to jam) and FHSS UHF radio signals for control (hard to jam, but not that hard. also crackable to get the control)
completely independent ones (like the one linked).. i dunno what you're planning, EMP wave?
they do not need any ground communication. in fact, they one single weakness: they use GPS for orientation. The USA can disable the GPS whenever necessary.
However some other positioning systems are coming up and its not impossible to make them fly to the right location without GPS control, actually, even without any of the satellite based systems, only using sensors and image analysis (tho those aren't as easy and well known at the DYI ones)
Re: (Score:2)
The sensor on a Stinger may not be sensitive enough to track a UAV. Remember, the Stinger is heat-seeking. A battery-powered UAV will not emit as much heat as a jet-powered or gas-fueled vehicle.
Barely any heat actually (Score:2)
Brushless motors and controllers are over 90% efficient. Plus DIY drones are made of a sort of styrofoam, which traps heat and IR, all you could possibly see is the (very, very) slightly hotter air passing through cooling holes. After flying my plane the battery is about as warm as my cell phone after a long call.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow I am sure they never thought of any of that. I love it I always come on here to find some guy who thinks he can outsmart the military and doesn't realize he was already dead long ago.
Seriously you don't think these scientist/engineers know what stuff is out there, that they cannot jam a signal and cannot track/triangulate a signals position.
There are many more systems than the patriot system for defense including the best of them all C-Ram which shoots explosive rounds into the air towards the target as
Let's get this out of the way (Score:5, Funny)
I don't understand: Drones are easy to take down. A couple of dragoons or zealots should do the trick nicely, or maybe a few marines instead. Heck, you can go at em with SCVs and have a fighting chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong cost comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong cost comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
Even worse, Suppose I can easily obtain and assemble the parts I need for an attack. But your, for instance, Patriot missiles take rather longer to assemble (as they are much more complex). If you have 50 missiles at hand, I only need to launch 51 attacks before you get your next shipment of missiles.
Clearly you are correct inasmuch as you won't spend 1,000,000,000 dollars to defend 200,000,000 dollars of assets. But the relative costs of defense and offense do matter.
It will be a battle of intelligence (and sensors) (Score:2)
As other nations develop their drones (and robotic fish and crawlers/walkers) our drones should be able to defeat theirs most of the time as long as ours are "smarter" and their senses are more acute.
The only problem is when "most' of the time isn't good enough, either when the enemy can produces a huge number of inferior yet numerically overwhelming units (China?) OR if they carry WMD (Nuclear, Biological or Chemical) where letting just one through is catastrophic.
That is why missile defense against a majo
We're back to WWI (Score:5, Interesting)
Read about the history of air warfare during WWI, with the rise of airplanes. The situation is analogous to drones. Ultimately, drones will have defenses and counter-attacks. It's not been a big deal yet because we're fighting people who don't have access to the technology, but that will change.
Lasers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Would it be possible to build tripod mounted lasers to lock onto a drone and just keep firing at it until the battery explodes / circuitry melts? Locking on should be easy since $500 drones won't be going at 200 meters per second. A laser working with household level power should be able to fry a drone in a few minutes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You? Legal? We're talking about military defense here.
EMP (Score:2)
Freakin Laser Beams... (Score:4, Interesting)
Not much to worry about (Score:2)
Anti-bot bots. (Score:2)
Economics!.. what if a $500 drone destroy a $500 drone?
I'll probably regret this.... but... (Score:5, Insightful)
A 500 buck drone, capable of carrying 250g of c4, with a range of 5 km and an endurance of 30 minutes, could bring a country to its knees.
Targets?
Satellite dish LNBs, High Tension cable insulators, refinery pipework, radar dishes on weaponry, etc etc etc.
use two, the first the blow an access into a window, and EVERY important computer is a target, bank computers, traffic control computers, air traffic control, industrial process, etc etc etc.
Use 5, meshed together, and the fifth could be flown inside a rabbit warren, SCRAM control sensors in a reactor plant, you name it.
Look here: (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.mikrokopter.de/ [mikrokopter.de]
For 1250 (a bit more expensive than 500, ok) you can get the hexacopter, which:
- has 20 to 40 minutes endurance
- is fully automatic
- can fly to GPS coordinates without outside commands
- can carry over 1 kg payload.
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta Feed the Military Industrial Complex (Score:4, Insightful)
We gotta keep finding new threats. Otherwise defense contractor stock would drop! We can't have that!
Terror weapon (Score:5, Interesting)
Sigh... (Score:3, Insightful)
As someone who likes flying model helicopters, I can see it won't be long until the government bans that on fears that "I might be a terrorist wanting to fly my T-Rex 600 into something", closing off yet another avenue of harmless pleasure.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. are worried this technology will get into the wrong hands! What makes them think they have the right ones? Such arrogance!
It's arrogant to be concerned about high-tech weapons falling into the hands of people who want to harm you?
Are you off your meds, again?
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the actions of the US military are harmful to the US citizens, yes. Modern US military policy is most closely related to an autoimmune disorder.
Of course, the whole reason there are that many anti-American Muslims in the first place is because we keep meddling in the affairs of people squabbling over a patch of dirt that they each think is sacred based on some ancient fairy tale. The Muslims are crazy, of course, but that's no reason to inflame them by meddling in this religious spat.
(And, yes,
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the actions of the US military are harmful to the US citizens, yes. Modern US military policy is most closely related to an autoimmune disorder.
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm just not sure where the "yes" came from, since I never asked for anyone's opinion about US military policy.
Of course, the whole reason there are that many anti-American Muslims in the first place is because we keep meddling in the affairs of people squabbling over a patch of dirt that they each think is sacred based on some ancient fairy tale. The Muslims are crazy, of course, but that's no reason to inflame them by meddling in this religious spat.
Yeah, I feel the same way about the Bloods and the Crips. Just let them conduct their business in peace, I say. Live and let live!
(And, yes, I know you're Israeli.)
I had to go and look at the flag on my uniform, just to make sure. It's red and white, with a maple-leaf in the middle, not blue and white with a star of david. So, I'm pretty sure you're wrong (3 out of 3!) but I'm open to changing
Re: (Score:2)
At the risk of getting in to a pointless argument, I feel the U.S. invasion of several countries (illegally or otherwise) seems to be a sign of the U.S. wanting to harm people and as we've seen, all to often they have been civilians.
Well, yeah, it's going to be pointless if you insist on side-tracking it. What in the world does that have to do with your original comment?
War is bad period! No one has the 'right hands' to wield war machines IMHO.
I've never understood how grown men can make such childishly naive statements. So what if "no one has the right hands"? As long as the technology exists, it's going to be used. If you're going to live with the rest of us in the real world, you're going to have to wrap your mind around the idea that people are going to do things you don't like. Stomping your foot an
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't side track, I responded to your point about people wanting to harm others, making the point that it's not just so called terrorists that want to harm.
Which, once again, has nothing to do with your original statement. I asked you why you think it's "arrogant" to want to protect yourself, and you answered "but we harm people too!". That's a complete non-sequitur. You may as well have said "I like apples!".
Perhaps we/I live (foolishly?) in hope of a better world?
Hoping for it is fine - ignoring reality is not.
Good point! Maybe I'm a deluded idealist...
It's a curable condition :)
Re: (Score:2)
You've got the right idea, but, really, you wouldn't even need "operators" per say. We have the technology to build drones capable of fully autonomous air-to-air combat. All you need is a trained monkey sitting in front of a screen, with a big red "go/no-go" switch to authorize weapons release.
I strongly disagree (Score:2)
$500 is the retail cost of one (1) EasyStar-based DIY drone:
In bulk, that shit wouldn't cost you more than $300. In fact, if you wanted to make tens of thousands of those, you could probably go down to $100. And you could easily make them bigger for not much more.