Leaked Documents Detail Al-Qaeda's Efforts To Fight Back Against Drones 234
An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post reports, 'Al-Qaeda's leadership has assigned cells of engineers to find ways to shoot down, jam or remotely hijack U.S. drones ... In July 2010, a U.S. spy agency intercepted electronic communications indicating that senior al-Qaeda leaders had distributed a "strategy guide" to operatives around the world advising them how "to anticipate and defeat" unmanned aircraft. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reported that al-Qaeda was sponsoring simultaneous research projects to develop jammers to interfere with GPS signals and infrared tags that drone operators rely on to pinpoint missile targets. Other projects in the works included the development of observation balloons and small radio-controlled aircraft, or hobby planes, which insurgents apparently saw as having potential for monitoring the flight patterns of U.S. drones... Al-Qaeda has a long history of attracting trained engineers ... Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, holds a mechanical-engineering degree ... In 2010, the CIA noted in a secret report that al-Qaeda was placing special emphasis on the recruitment of technicians and that "the skills most in demand" included expertise in drones and missile technology.'"
Who leaked the documents? (Score:4, Funny)
Should we be prosecuting them?
Re:Who leaked the documents? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a good question.
The answer is: It doesn't matter. Just be grateful.
Did you not think the enemy would adapt? Would you be better off not knowing what your government is up to, or what challenges it faces? We're not talking about the Enigma machine here, you know. The only surprises that came out of these leaks so far is the unlimited power that our government believes it has over our privacy, and the extent to which they will go to hide what they're doing from us citizens.
MORE DISINFORMATION (Score:5, Insightful)
Designed to create the belief:
1 - Intelligence intercepts and interrogations are effective at getting information that "protects" "us".
2 - Drones are an effective weapon against "our" "enemies" and not principally dangerous to villagers and local civic functions.
But WHY do you believe ANY public information from an agency that has DECEIT in its charter?
Re:MORE DISINFORMATION (Score:4, Insightful)
Designed to create the belief:
1 - Intelligence intercepts and interrogations are effective at getting information that "protects" "us".
And you dispute that? People seem to be pretty eager to read them for what you think are ineffective methods.
2 - Drones are an effective weapon against "our" "enemies" and not principally dangerous to villagers and local civic functions.
Pakistani General: Actually, The Drones Are Awesome [wired.com]
You take issue with referring to the ever fun-loving Taliban and al Qaida as enemies?
17 Beheaded in Taliban-Controlled Afghanistan for Attending Wedding Party with Dancing [joemiller.us]
Taliban Hangs Afghan Boy, 7, for Spying [cbsnews.com]
I was one of the Taliban's torturers: I crucified people [freerepublic.com]
How do you think they should be referred to? As the, "Asian gentlemen with a minor beheading problem?" "The life of the party with a suicide vest?" "The local representatives of Crucifier's Anonymous - the 12 step program to kill all your enemies?"
Re:MORE DISINFORMATION (Score:5, Insightful)
"Al Qaeda" is a term of convenience. The Libyan "rebels" were 70+ % Jihadi "Al Qaeda".
The Syrian "opposition" is 80+ % "Al Qaeda" [talkingpointsmemo.com] - funded by Qatar [longwarjournal.org] and Saudi, for the same regional purposes, with a generous assist from these CIA heroes, [telegraph.co.uk] that you rush to defend.
http://syriareport.net/fsa-al-qaeda-fighting-under-the-one-flag/ [syriareport.net]
http://www.cfr.org/syria/al-qaedas-specter-syria/p28782 [cfr.org]
http://rt.com/news/qaeda-militants-kill-fsa-commander-979/ [rt.com]
They laugh at your ignorance, and they count on it.
Re:MORE DISINFORMATION (Score:4, Insightful)
yep, the syrian president is corrupt and terrible, but in a nearly ironic fashion his opposition is al qaeda. That's why we should have stayed the fuck out. The closest thing to a *smart* decision was russia's ethically questionable decision of playing the neutral party and selling weapons to both sides, giving them both a: a profit and b: ensuring that this escalating civil war ends quicker.
the US decision to support any side in Syria is explicitly the wrong decision.
Re: (Score:3)
bah! The Libyans can't even drive a VW van and shoot a rocket launcher without running into a photo-mat.
Re: (Score:2)
There are also reports and scary links showing up between a lot of influential people saying that you're full of shit and likely an SEA member.
Interesting link I saw this morning on the makeup of the Syrian rebel forces:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/05/us-syria-crisis-usa-rebels-idUSBRE98405L20130905 [reuters.com]
Re:MORE DISINFORMATION (Score:5, Interesting)
You take issue with referring to the ever fun-loving Taliban and al Qaida as enemies?
Cold fjord: regardless of whether I agree with them, I'd have a lot more respect for your opinions if you stopped attacking straw men. Where did the GP say anything like that? What he's questioning is how effective TPTB are at combating that enemy, how much of what TPTB spew is self-serving, and how much "collateral damage" they cause (with the ever attendant blowback, to use the CIA's own parlance).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Should Afghans be at liberty to send troops on the US soil, to launch military strikes at American criminals? Because, as far as I can tell, that's the next logical step of the argument you seem to be making. Or is might=right?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You live in a dreamworld - populated by State Dept phantoms and CIA-fed ghost chasers.
If what you say weren't a farcical, Emmanuel Goldstein fiction, then maybe if "we" didn't kill their babies, they'd stay at home?
Re: (Score:2)
Independent verification, please? Stenography for the claims of Administration figures, without factual evidence to support their claims - this is not reporting. This is not fact.
If you're such a Holder fan, why aren't you backing him on his truthfulness about "Fast and Furious"?
(Sound of head exploding)
Re: (Score:2)
"We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity." - Omar Bakri Muhammad
Similar things have been said be every radical Muslim cleric.
It's a global problem. SO, do we wait until the have co-opted several governments before taking action? cause that are coming for you, and for me, and for anyone who doesn't have the same radical beliefs.
Just to be clear, he conside
Re: MORE DISINFORMATION (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Here are the people [inserbia.info] that Obomber and Kerry want to help with their Raytheon Cruise Missiles.
Re: (Score:2)
Obomber?
Thanks for highlighting the fact you have stopped thinking in any meaningful way.
Re: (Score:2)
Your "Pakistani General" knows what side his bread is buttered on, and who pays for the higher-priced spread.
He may as well be on US payroll: http://gauhar.com/?p=2455 [gauhar.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You take issue with referring to the ever fun-loving Taliban and al Qaida as enemies?
17 Beheaded in Taliban-Controlled Afghanistan for Attending Wedding Party with Dancing [joemiller.us] Taliban Hangs Afghan Boy, 7, for Spying [cbsnews.com] I was one of the Taliban's torturers: I crucified people [freerepublic.com]
How do you think they should be referred to? As the, "Asian gentlemen with a minor beheading problem?" "The life of the party with a suicide vest?" "The local representatives of Crucifier's Anonymous - the 12 step program to kill all your enemies?"
And how is this our problem? It's not nice, for sure, but why is it our job to fix it? To stabilize the region? Why should we care? For Israel and Saudi Arabia? The Saudis can go fuck themselves and Israel is only our friend when they want something (usually guns and money). Are we trying to impress Europe? All they ever do is complain anyway. Don't tell me it's for `stopping human suffering', because you know damn well that that shithole was a shithole for the previous century and it will be for the next f
Re: (Score:2)
Good question, and here is the answer:
Radical Islam wants to take over the world. I say that without hyperbole.
Here are some quotes from Omar Bakri Muhammad. Google can help you find similar quotes from every radical Islam cleric.
These quotes are also backed by action taken from Radical Muslim peoples. Although I think that they should just be called 'religious nut jobs' and not give them the satisfaction of hearing the religion in the news.
"We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, i
Re: (Score:3)
Re:MORE DISINFORMATION (Score:4, Interesting)
That the US has backed some wonderful freedom fighters for use in Syria?
The same type of people who where in Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya? Must be fun for the special forces training them
They become such good freedom fighters again in such a short time
Re:MORE DISINFORMATION (Score:5, Insightful)
I was one of the Taliban's torturers: I crucified people [freerepublic.com]
How do you think they should be referred to?
Well, let's take a look at your facts. According to this story, the Taliban, if that's what this man is referring to, were supported by the U.S. to fight the Soviets. So at that time, they weren't our enemies. They did the same brutal murders (of Najibulla, for example) and the U.S. smiled and patted their heads.
Now they switched alliances and they're "our" enemies.
I don't think dividing the world into "good guys" and "bad guys," depending on whether they're committing brutal murders on our behalf or against it, is useful.
For that reason, I don't think the term "enemies" is useful either. Historians don't use that word.
Re: (Score:2)
You started out promising, " let's take a look at your facts," but then you state this, "the Taliban, if that's what this man is referring to, were supported by the U.S. to fight the Soviets." Wrong, incredibly wrong. First, the US didn't support the Taliban fighting the Soviets since the Taliban formed during the Afghan civil war that occurred after the Soviets left Afghanistan. Second, it doesn't state what you claim in that story. The Taliban was never a US ally, but it did become an enemy.
That also
Re:MORE DISINFORMATION (Score:5, Informative)
The Mujahadeen which we supported were the precursor to the Taliban. That article from the Telegram makes it clear. The "terrorist" describes fighting against the Soviets.
The military document you link to refers to the enemy in quotes by one side or the other. The "enemy" is how one side sees the other. A historian like Herodotus tells the story of each side, without taking sides.
There are some chicken hawks like Richard Perle who want this country to attack supposed enemies in the middle east. I don't buy it. They're Richard Perle's enemies, they're not my enemies.
Re: (Score:2)
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_airlift [wikipedia.org] (Airlift of Evil) should help you understand the wonderful deals that can be done by all sides for later use
A database if you like.
Re:MORE DISINFORMATION (Score:4, Informative)
Who is al Qaida to you? ...Who do you think they are? Friend? Enemy? No idea? Don't want to take sides?
You should take that question to Obama, congress. As this post above [slashdot.org], so graciously points out:
"Al Qaeda" is a term of convenience. The Libyan "rebels" were 70+ % Jihadi "Al Qaeda".
The Syrian "opposition" is 80+ % "Al Qaeda" [talkingpointsmemo.com] - funded by Qatar [longwarjournal.org] and Saudi, for the same regional purposes, with a generous assist from these CIA heroes, [telegraph.co.uk] that you rush to defend.
http://syriareport.net/fsa-al-qaeda-fighting-under-the-one-flag/ [syriareport.net]
http://www.cfr.org/syria/al-qaedas-specter-syria/p28782 [cfr.org]
http://rt.com/news/qaeda-militants-kill-fsa-commander-979/ [rt.com] [rt.com]
They laugh at your ignorance, and they count on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The thing I find the most interesting is The United States is owned by the crown of England who also represents itself as owner of the Holy Roman Empire. You know... crucifying people and all that.... but I digress.
Until you can tell me how the Lizardoids are milking this (not in a mammalian sense, of course) for best strategic gain, then this scenario lacks credibility.
As to the difference between drone attacks and crucifixion, it's very hard for a drone attack to deliberately kill someone in two to three days of agony, while that's the point of crucifixion.
Re:MORE DISINFORMATION (Score:5, Informative)
As to the difference between drone attacks and crucifixion, it's very hard for a drone attack to deliberately kill someone in two to three days of agony, while that's the point of crucifixion.
If you burn somebody on 50% of his body, with napalm or conventional weapons, he's going to die in two or three days of agony as painful as anything else he could suffer.
If I gave you a long list of U.S.-supported torturers who were just as bad, would that change your opinion? Start with Pinochet.
Re: (Score:2)
If I gave you a long list of U.S.-supported torturers who were just as bad, would that change your opinion? Start with Pinochet.
So, how does that apply to dones, Romans, and Lizardoids? Mmm?
If you're going for lists of torturers, Pinochet is small potatoes. You need to go to the Soviets [youtube.com], or North Koreans [theguardian.com], or the PRC if you want to be really competitive.
Re:MORE DISINFORMATION (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, everybody does it.
If you want to punish everybody who has committed torture, fine. Henry Kissinger is on the list.
If you want to be selective, I don't buy that. You're not against torture. You're just using it as an excuse to justify your political goals that have nothing to do with torture.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_of_Death [wikipedia.org]
So when you have a state, flag and uniforms its all just small potatoes?
Re: (Score:2)
So when you have a state, flag and uniforms its all just small potatoes?
And body counts that differ by many orders of magnitude. For example, the Holodomor [wikipedia.org] killed at least 2 million Ukrainians that Stalin didn't like. The "Caravan of Death" killed 97 people that Pinochet didn't like. They're just not in the same league.
Re: (Score:2)
The legal 'magnitude" of what South America did, who they where funded and supported by and how the govs reached out into the wider world is useful to recall.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point. What the US government (not "we") is doing is like Pinochet.
And why do you say that? There's at least a state of war (declared or not) between the US and what it targets.
If he had drones he could have sent drones instead of a death squad on helicopters.
So?
Re: (Score:2)
I know you didn't mean Lizardoids like that Reptillian crap right?
Yes, I did mean Lizardoids like that Reptillian crap.
FACTUAL REPORTING (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank god. The CIA makes SURE that the TRUTH is out there! Like, way, way out there...
In Dec. 2012 it was reported Said al-Shihri, supposedly an "al Qaeda number two", was killed.
It was the third time, according to "official sources", informed by Intelligence, the US reported they'd killed him
And another Three-fer was Abu Yahya al-Libi, which the US claimed to have killed 2 times before they yet again claimed to have killed him in June 2012.
Damn! This US intelligence is SO GOOD it kills "Al Qaeda" guys THREE TIMES!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:FACTUAL REPORTING (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how much better the US would be if it were to stop intelligence surveillance of terrorists completely as some people have been suggesting.
Who has been suggesting it? I think it would be a bad idea, but monitoring 300M+ "terrorist suspects" suggests that they should narrow it down a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh shit forgot to ask... How does one use a strawman against a country? Could come in handy one day :-)
Or... (Score:2, Insightful)
In July 2010, a U.S. spy agency intercepted electronic communications indicating that senior al-Qaeda leaders had distributed a "strategy guide" to operatives around the world
They may just be making this up to get more funding. Sometimes these "intercepted messages" or "chatter" look just so convenient (often well timed) and meaningless that one has to wonder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As for the contractor boondoggle aspect - funding is flowing for drones, the targeting chips and the huge generational upgrades.
Contractors based around the manned systems might be pushing back by bringing "intercepted messages" or "chatter" out to bolster their hold on huge contracts.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Mostly =/= completely.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially, one as cheap and effective as drones are.
Drones are far from cheap. Wikipedia puts MQ-1 Predator unit cost (as of 2010) at $4.03 million. How is that cheap?
Re:Or... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Or... (Score:5, Informative)
Drones are far from cheap. Wikipedia puts MQ-1 Predator unit cost (as of 2010) at $4.03 million. How is that cheap?
F-15 Eagle: $30 million
F-14 Tomcat (Top Gun): $38 million
F-18 Hornet: $41 million
F-22 Raptor: $139 million
That's how it's cheap. Throw in the fact that when you shoot down a drone, you don't lose a pilot that cost years of expensive training that could easily run into a fair fraction of a million dollars to replace, and drones are as cheap as dirt.
Don't forget Combat Search and Rescue (Score:4, Insightful)
Throw in the fact that when you shoot down a drone, you don't lose a pilot that cost years of expensive training that could easily run into a fair fraction of a million dollars to replace
Don't forget the Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) team that may be sent into harms way if we hear from the pilot once he is on the ground. For example when an F-16 pilot went down in Serbia, O'Grady, the rescue force included 2 CH-53 transport helicopters, 2 AH-1 helicopter gunships, 2 AV-8 ground attack jets, their crews and 51 Marine infantryman. The AH-1's took missile fire but successfully evaded. The CH-53's were hit with small arms fire.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know his basis for the numbers, but they seem like in the right ballpark to me. You have fuel costs, X hours of maintenance for Y hours of flight - you can average that out, replacement costs of failed components, care and feeding of the ground crew, the pilot, the airfield it operates from, etc. Adds up rather fast. Drones are cheaper to operate than manned aircraft - that is a no-brainer. Is it exactly that much cheaper? Can't say for sure.
Re: (Score:3)
As for an ongoing war on a tactic, most nations surviving double tap drone strikes would have their nations best and brightest thinking about their airspace.
Al-Qaeda keeps losing recruits to Google (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Al-Qaeda keeps losing recruits to Google (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't forget Google's "it's ok to be evil sometimes" slogan.
Re:Al-Qaeda keeps losing recruits to Google (Score:4, Funny)
72 geeky virgins.
Wahabism frowns upon homosexuality.
Re:Al-Qaeda keeps losing recruits to Google (Score:5, Interesting)
Better pay, free food, "20% time" to work on individual plots to destroy Israel, and of course, 72 geeky virgins.
Ya gotta understand... engineers are HIGHLY sought after by terrorist organizations. Many specifically pony up for college just to get them skilled up enough to fight for the cause. The problem is... with an education comes this funny idea that maybe blowing up infidels isn't the best long-term strategy. If you knew how many people come here on student visas and just before graduating show up at the local FBI office or something to say "Yeah, hey guys... I actually came here on the 'death to america' ticket, but it turns out I like jeans, scantily clad girls, beer, and decent-paying jobs and, you know, I'd be grateful if you could, I don't know, keep me?" ... you'd probably be both surprised and a little bit heartened. I'm not saying it's a frequent occurrance, but it happens often enough to be worth writing home about as it were.
That said... the terrorists may be working on ways to neutralize drones, but so too is every major military, including our own. Early generation drones didn't have a lot of failsafes, and several were successfully jammed. If it lost the signal, it just fell out of the sky. Some advancements have since occurred and they now have the same basic logic as a cruise missile, which is 'complete last command' on the event of a communications loss. Which is to say, if it's on a kill mission, it will complete the job if jammed... so by the time you see it, you're already fucked.
Advancements now mean that they can rely on a variety of sensors beyond GPS for navigation and have a 'return to base' command in the event of a loss of communications -- they can often fly entirely autonomously and record everything for later (manual) retrieval. Communications after take-off is not necessary for many operational profiles.
In fact, it is also very hard to jam surveillance drones as they employ rapid frequency shifting and super wide spread spectrum -- you have to basically jam tens of Ghz of spectrum to have a shot at impairing a drone's operation -- or the encryption keys, from which the PRNG used to syncronize the transmitter and receiver during these frequency hops, which occur at over 30,000 times per second. Basically, good luck even finding the signal, let alone jamming it, or getting a lock on it. This is the same technology used for stealth technology to prevent radio comms from giving away the position of our bombers, etc.
And since it's all implimented using highly specialized FPGAs that are wiped on a power loss event or if the aircraft suffers any number of failure modes that prevent successful retrieval of the aircraft, it auto-erases and goes to a failsafe mode, transmitting it's location just prior to impact and then powering off. Which must have really pissed Iran off when they captured one of our Predator drones, popped it open, and found nothing but a melted fuck you scorch mark where the control logic was.
Now, that doesn't mean all drones in all flight profiles use this technology. I'm just saying, it's available, so drones can be used even in an emissions-hostile environment. Sometimes it isn't used, but these are for reasons of practicality and ease of use. If you want a drone with an electronics package that says "Fuck you" in fifty foot tall neon lettering to anyone trying to jam you... there's an app for that.
Re: (Score:2)
That's their problem right there. They should send them to the Birmingham University. The English one. They'll be dying to get back home.
Re: (Score:2)
That drone was an intelligence bonanza for Iran and China. It came down mostly intact and without self-destructing. We know this because they released video footage that it recorded as proof. I'm sure some stuff was auto-erased, but even so merely being able to dissect the electronics to see what systems it has and perform tests to determine their accuracy and weaknesses would have been extremely valuable.
Notice how Iran's own drone programme got a nice boost afterwards too. They clearly learned from it.
Mor
Not just al Qaeda (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm guessing every other military in the world is also interested in a defence against drones.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing every other military in the world is also interested in a defence against drones.
Every other military in the world does not consist of lightly armed tribal peoples, and therefore can easily detect and defend from what constitutes a threat in rural Yemen/Pakistan.
Classified Vacuum Cleaner (Score:3)
I can't believe the summary mentioned Khalid Sheik Mohammed without mentioning that he's not just any trained engineer -- he designed a classified vacuum cleaner [newyorker.com] .
Sheesh...and they call this "News for Nerds"....though come to think of it all the true nerds already knew this!
More evidence... (Score:2)
"Al-Qaeda has a long history of attracting trained engineers..."
More evidence that the STEM crisis is a myth. [slashdot.org]
Re:More evidence... (Score:5, Funny)
Or that al-Qaeda is yet another big organization pushing for an increase in the H-1B visa quota.
Re: (Score:3)
FTA:
al-Qaeda was placing special emphasis on the recruitment of technicians and that "the skills most in demand" included expertise in drones and missile technology
In this job market they shouldn't have too much trouble.
Not that I'd ever do it myself of course, but just out of curiosity, how much do they pay?
Re: More evidence... (Score:4, Funny)
4 camels a year, a top bunk in the cave barracks, and a an account at Hassan's House of Hummus.
No health/vision/dental, but the life policy has the standard 72 virgin payout.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds competitive.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are they called cells? (Score:2)
Re:Why are they called cells? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad people have cells.
Good people have teams.
Useless people have focus groups.
Self-serving parasites have Six Sigma groups.
Re:Why are they called cells? (Score:4, Funny)
Bad people have cells.
I thought all people have cells? Some even have brain cells!
Re: (Score:2)
What they really need is a mission statement.
We have committed to synergistically coordinate high-impact terrorism across multidisciplinary cells so that we may collaboratively provide access to inexpensive leadership skills in order to destroy infidels.
Re: (Score:2)
What they really need is a mission statement.
We have committed to synergistically coordinate high-impact terrorism across multidisciplinary cells so that we may collaboratively provide access to inexpensive leadership skills in order to destroy infidels.
Congratulations! You have developed an almost infallible plan to eliminate Al Qaeda as a threat by means of buzzword-speaking management consultants! Before long they will be attempting to apply Six Sigma methodologies to suicide bombings (which will probably result in the suicide bombers, well, committing suicide.)
Re:Why are they called cells? (Score:4, Informative)
Ireland is really a great place to start in terms of operational cells and how the UK was able to 'buy'/'spy' their way in once a few members where connected.
If the enemy get in deep, internal security structure can be persuaded to hunt their own cells.
Cells were great for sneaker net but with todays cell and net use - its getting more tricky.
What's The Payoff? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's The Payoff? (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, Bin Laden's original vision was at least partly to strike back at us for killing muslims almost kind of for fun and practice. Including children. When you start murdering children based on their nationality and religion that does tend to make people mad. How would you feel if some Muslim country started bombing buildings and indiscriminately killing thousands including innocent children in the US? You'd probably be pissed off. Maybe not enough to blow yourself up, but if you did you wouldn't be doing it because you were "psychotically violent". This idea of evil arabs who are just evil because they were born that way is laughable. These people have good reason to be mad and want revenge and every drone strike we make just increses that anger and desire for justice.
CIA training didn't cover drones? (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess the CIA training offered to Al Qaeda, back when they were our guys, didn't cover drones.
Re:CIA training didn't cover drones? (Score:4, Insightful)
The US and UK worked hard with what they had.
Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
We're supposed to be afraid of these douchebags? We're supposed to fear their engineering "prowess"? Is that what this is supposed to mean?
They make underpants bombs that won't even work under the best of circumstances. I grew up in the Cold War. I feared Russian engineering, because they actually could lob a *nuclear* tipped missile over the North Pole or from a submarine (they never solved the "launch from under water" thing, though). And the both the Bush and Obama administrations were calling these underpants bombs "sophisticated." Bullshit. Complete, utter bullshit. You know what's sophisticated? Over-the-horizon radar. ICBMs. Nuclear submarines. Tsar Bomba even if it was impractical.
What is not sophisticated: IEDs. ANFO bombs. Flying planes into buildings. These are not sophisticated. These can be pulled off by people of average intelligence and just enough insanity to believe in their bullshit cause.
"But they have a world-wide network of engineers!!!1111ONE@#$@#$R"
What a lot of crap. All the engineering in the world isn't going to help you if you can't implement your "master plan" and the only logistics that they seem capable of is ground fightin' and IEDs. Bring down drones? There are governments that have been throwing money at this problem and Iran got just *one* drone to show for all their work, and it's even disputable that they got it by jamming GPS (which is possible if you've got a loud enough transmitter and a crappy enough receiver). That's not much of a return on investment.
When all you have is a bunch of mentally-ill (because this kind of religious devotion is mental illness) engineers and suicidal foot-soldiers, you really don't have a lot of bright people. You have dolts. Dedicated, but not too bright. Because if they were bright... well... I'll leave you with this apropos quote:
--
BMO
Re:Fear (Score:5, Interesting)
That strikes awfully close to home, don't you think? According to a 2007 Gallup poll [wikipedia.org], about 43% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Viewed from the other side, our current mission to bring "democracy to the world" (or whatever the hell we're doing and excusing it with), might just as well be seen as modern day crusades. I'm absolutely sure both you and I would fight it if we were at the other end of the stick.
As for the quote from Rudyard Kipling's story, that applies to any enlisted or ranked man, in any military at any point in history. See Gwynne Dyer's documentary "War" [wikipedia.org] for an excellent view into the training of Western world enlisted men. So yeah, maybe your comment was indeed sarcastic? Hard to tell. Some people actually do believe that "the team I'm with is better than and morally superior to yours". Tribe belongingness is after all how human kind has survived over the millennia. I wouldn't call it sophisticated, though.
Finally, are we supposed to be afraid? Well, but of course we are! How else would our masters be able to pull a sock over our head and go on with their cocaine induced power-trips? "We've always been at war with Eastasia", and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
Um... yeah they did. From the Yankee class (1968) onwards they could launch submerged.
Re: (Score:2)
What made AQ strong for a while was OBL's incredible intelligence. He was smart enough to more than make up for the rest of them being total morons. To use a demolition analogy, he could tell you when and where to tap a dam with a hammer and bring the whole thing down. Without his little nuggets of genius they're just a bunch of idiots with hammers.
Oh My....Don't they know.. (Score:3)
... they are not supposed to defend themselves....
Come on DARPA - let's have another challenge! (Score:2)
Perhaps it would be a good time for DARPA to offer one of their technology challenges... perhaps $1m to the first team/person who can successfully bring down a drone using a home-made countermeasure.
That way we'd know for sure just how viable such "amateur" countermeasures would be (and I'd be $1m richer :-)
Seriously though -- drones flying at lower altitudes (ie: 5000m or lower) would *not* be that hard to take out using "off the shelf" technology adapted and applied in innovative ways.
I guess they're not happy (Score:2)
They clearly don't appreciate that the US can hurt them without putting any human into their reach. If they do succeed in disabling or destroying a drone, all they get is hardware. No hostage. No video opportunity for a nice beheading. No propaganda victory.
Serves them right!
After all, they are evil death cult followers hell-bent on killing women and children for reasons so insane it's out of this world, and any blow we can deal them is both justified and well deserved.
Terrorists have by their inhumane acti
Re:I guess they're not happy (Score:5, Insightful)
... They use bombs to target only random innocent people and that is so evil it's hard to comprehend, so getting targeted by drones even when hiding their cowardly asses behind their women and children is completely fair in every way.
Wait, let me get this right. You are saying since they kill innocent people it's okay for us to kill innocent people?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that most US citizens are against intervention. I really think most voters really do want something to be done, the hard part is figuring out what that something is.
As for Putin, he's probably wrong if experience is any indicator. He doesn't want the US to do anything; obviously having the US do something bad is bad for the world, but at the same time having the US do something good is bad for Putin's self image at home. Ie, Russia still wants to consider itself one of the two superpowers i
Re:Always been at war with Eurasia (Score:5, Informative)
"I don't think that most US citizens are against intervention."
Reuters poll of from yesterday -- 56% oppose intervention in Syria, 19% support intervention.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-syria-crisis-usa-idUSBRE97T0NB20130903 [reuters.com]
something done != military action (Score:3)
It's possible that many people "want something done" while realizing that the military strikes proposed by Obama aren't the right something, or that there is no effective "something" to do. I would have been in the majority in that poll, counted as "opposed". I DO want somebody smart to come up with some effective action. I do want something done, and understand there's nothing we CAN do that will help.
Of course "most Americans" are probably busy watching Honey Boo Boo and have no idea who "Assad" is.
Re: (Score:2)
The US and Russian are still capable to destroy each other several times over.
"something good" would be promoting education and development in the region. That's what it really needs. No one would mind it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Will the drones face: Blowpipe and stay up?
Or Stinger and have some issues?
Can the drones offer the mercenaries/externally funded 'freedom' fighters a total victory on the cheap?
Will the special forces have to call in the older US equipment to allow their 'freedom' fighters to gain total victory?
Re:R&D for Muhammad (Score:4, Insightful)
Would work in principle, but I don't think these little planes have either the speed or the agility. If it became a problem, the drones to then be equipped with some kind of heat sensors that could make avoiding them become rather trivial, at which point their best hope would be to somehow train birds to fly into these drones.
GPS spoofing - I don't know for certain, but I don't think it would be difficult at all to add RSA signing to the timing beacons, even if they did it to existing satellites in orbit. Maybe not the older members of the constellation (which are constantly being phased out,) but the newer ones for sure. Something akin to that is long overdue anyways. As far as all out jamming goes, there is already ample technology available to allow navigation in small areas without the need for GPS, just enough to seek and destroy targets in a given area after reconnaissance photography has already been taken (which it presumably has been, unless we're just blindly picking targets.)
Unless Al-Qaeda can secure some automated targeting systems of its own (i.e. unmanned interceptors) their chances of waging a successful war against these drones is rather non-existent.
These drones are pretty fucking scary to be anywhere near the receiving end of, and if you ask me, the fact that being in Al-Qaeda puts you in their crosshairs is a pretty good deterrent to recruitment - or at least it should be to any sane person (but the religious viewpoints of its members sort of rules out sanity.) I think at best this might be their way of saying "we're doing something about the drones" when in reality they are probably making approximately zero progress, but saying they are making progress might be good enough to help with recruitment efforts.
Re: (Score:2)
I think living in the middle east or in any muslim country tends to put you in their crosshairs. Can't you just shoot down the drowns with anti-aircraft guns or a shoulder fired missile?
Re:R&D for Muhammad (Score:5, Informative)
I think living in the middle east or in any muslim country tends to put you in their crosshairs. Can't you just shoot down the drowns with anti-aircraft guns or a shoulder fired missile?
No, because:
1. They fly awfully high.
2. Shoulder fired missiles like the Stinger are "heat seeking." The exhaust of drones are thermally attenuated through various means because of this..
3. You have to actually see them - either on radar or visually. Since AlQ doesn't have radar, they rely on sight only. The paint schemes on these drones make them really difficult to see visually.
4. If you can't see them visually or on radar, can you hear them? At the heights they fly at and the low noise engine...that's a big-fat No.
Drones aren't your dad's model aircraft.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
But... We love death more than you love ... sitting in a comfy chair munching popcorn playing with million dollar toys... oh wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. The reaper has an operational altitude of 50,000 feet. You might somehow get a hobbyist RC plane more than half that high, but to then chase down and hit the reaper? No way, forget it. Even a Stinger missile can only get around half that high.
The only practical way for people with no missiles or fighter jets to counter drones like the Reaper in anything other than a passive way (hiding/obscuring the targets) would be to find and track the military satellites that relay control signals, and then target them with jamming/hacking/etc.
Perhaps a very powerful and tightly-focused MASER aimed at the sats, if they can acheive accurate enough tracking, might burn out the satellite radio relay/C&C receiver front-ends and turn them into space junk. Tha
Re: (Score:2)
Because their country taught them to.
Either to fight against the tyranny of governments with secret reports, or because capitalism is the religion of america and therefor leads to a greater good (for someone). Either opinion is equally likely to be true. The only difference being the p