Defending against drones: they could soon be used against us - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmac2012 · #1 03-10-2010, 02:04 AM

http://www.newsweek.com/id/234114

The these things are costing less and less.

The unmanned spy plane that Lebanon's Hizbullah sent buzzing over Israeli towns in 2005 was loud and weaponless, and carried only a rudimentary camera. But the surprise flight by a regional terror group still worried U.S. analysts, who saw it as a sign that the unmanned vehicles were falling into the wrong hands.

Smaller UAVs' cool, battery-powered engines make them difficult to hit with conventional heat-seeking missiles; Patriot missiles can take out UAVs, but at $3 million apiece such protection comes at a very steep price. Even seemingly unsophisticated drones can have a tactical advantage: Hizbullah's primitive planes flew so slowly that Israeli F-16s stalled out trying to decelerate enough to shoot them down.

Today, the lag time between the development of military technology and its widespread dissemination is measured in months, not years. Industrial farmers around the world already use aerial drones to dust their crops with pesticides. And a recent U.S. Air Force study concluded that similar systems are "an ideal platform" for dirty bombs containing radioactive, chemical, or biological weapons—the type of WMDs that terrorists are most likely to obtain. Such technologies have the potential to strengthen the hand not only of Al Qaeda 2.0, but also of homegrown terror cells and disaffected loners like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. As one robotics expert told me, for less than $50,000 "a few amateurs could shut down Manhattan."

t walgamuth · #2 03-10-2010, 05:43 AM

I question whether the drones we use are worth the adverse publicity we get from using them. I gotta think a lot of noncombatants are killed with them. I was talking to a retired Army colonel at my granddaughters bd party about them and he agreed a lot of innocents are killed with them.

Using them is considered immoral by the people we use them against.....so they feel cutting off heads of our captured people is fair turnabout....perhaps.

They think we are infidels who kill promiscuosly.

There is a line from the movie "The Wind and the Lion" about machine guns (which were new at the time the movie is set) being devices to kill promiscuously and "There is no honor in that".

The movie predates drones by a couple of decades but it really hit home last time I watched it.

Txjake · #3 03-10-2010, 09:49 AM

a return to conventional anti-aircraft systems, upgraded with new radar, ie Vulcan or even the quad 50 or quad 40mm, should do very well with most UAVs.....simple weapons for simple aircraft threats.

Kuan · #4 03-10-2010, 09:54 AM

Put me down for one of these

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7412149/Inventor-creates-jetpack-which-can-travel-at-60mph.html

strelnik · #5 03-10-2010, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

I question whether the drones we use are worth the adverse publicity we get from using them. I gotta think a lot of noncombatants are killed with them. I was talking to a retired Army colonel at my granddaughters bd party about them and he agreed a lot of innocents are killed with them. Using them is considered immoral by the people we use them against.....so they feel cutting off heads of our captured people is fair turnabout....perhaps. They think we are infidels who kill promiscuosly. There is a line from the movie "The Wind and the Lion" about machine guns (which were new at the time the movie is set) being devices to kill promiscuously and "There is no honor in that".
The movie predates drones by a couple of decades but it really hit home last time I watched it.

All weapons have unintended consequences. When the Geneva Convention outlawed lead bullets becauise they would flatten and do more damage (dum-dum bullets) they made them with steel (" ball") cores. The bad news: The steel bullet could go thpough one or more " layers" of person behind you. "Helping" the onbe soldier ended up wounding a second (or third).

All bombs create collateral damage, by definition.

The only "surgical" strike comes from an industrial laser.

As far as drones go, open sources have seen them since the 1980s, when the Israelis first release them, and everyone thought they were a novelty toy, instead of a weapon.

Until they perfect the Star Trek phaser.....

lutzTD · #6 03-10-2010, 11:36 AM

It doesnt seem too difficult to get RC hobby electronics, a computer and a flight platform together though, why would we think this is beyond anyones technology?

Nate · #7 03-10-2010, 12:52 PM

Yeah, It wouldn't be hard to put a decent wireless camera and whatnot to a remote controlled toy airplane or helicopter... It's bothersome how easy it is for a creative person to use commercially available products for that kind of stuff...

Such is the world we live in tho.
~Nate

t walgamuth · #8 03-10-2010, 12:53 PM

Acording to my colonel friend our drones are controlled by folks sitting at a computer in Virginia (or someplace here).

He says it it psycologically tough on folks to sit at a desk and kill people and go home and play with the kids.

fritzintn · #9 03-10-2010, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

He says it it psycologically tough on folks to sit at a desk and kill people and go home and play with the kids.

Skip to 60minutes in: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

SirNik84 · #10 03-10-2010, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

I question whether the drones we use are worth the adverse publicity we get from using them. I gotta think a lot of noncombatants are killed with them. I was talking to a retired Army colonel at my granddaughters bd party about them and he agreed a lot of innocents are killed with them.

Using them is considered immoral by the people we use them against.....so they feel cutting off heads of our captured people is fair turnabout....perhaps.

They think we are infidels who kill promiscuosly.

There is a line from the movie "The Wind and the Lion" about machine guns (which were new at the time the movie is set) being devices to kill promiscuously and "There is no honor in that".

The movie predates drones by a couple of decades but it really hit home last time I watched it.

The Wind and the Lion is a great movie. I watched it about a year ago, it should be shown to every high school history class. there are so many parallels to what we are going through today, and it does a great job of showing both sides, giving a better understanding to our current situation.

As to the bad guy justifying their beheadings with our use of drones... reminds me of a show I watched on the history channel about the use of the shotgun in war. During WWI the Germans sighted the shotgun as a weapon of terror because the GIs would jump into Jerry’s trench and clean it out with a shotgun... according to the Germans this was the worst weapon of the war... this from the guys who deployed mustard gas.

Pooka · #11 03-10-2010, 02:01 PM

When the Geneva Convention outlawed Dum-Dum's the British came up with a nasty little suprise. The lead bullet heads were drilled out from behind and a bit of sawdust was dropped in and then filled in with lead from behind.

The effect was when the bullet hit the soft head would flatten out and be pushed on by the lead behind it. It worked just like a Dum-Dum but for some odd reason it was legal.

This meant that all the .303's they had needed to be reworked to take the new round which was a little bit longer, but the Brits felt it was worth it.

raymr · #12 03-10-2010, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Acording to my colonel friend our drones are controlled by folks sitting at a computer in Virginia (or someplace here).

He says it it psycologically tough on folks to sit at a desk and kill people and go home and play with the kids.

I saw the show on that and its kind of sickening. They are supposed to behave and respond like they are actually in the plane, but they know they are not. Simply pushing a button 3000 miles away to snuff out human life - no matter how low that life is - doesn't elevate our standing in the world. Its a little bit like graduating from video games to playing God.

HuskyMan · #13 03-10-2010, 03:51 PM

didn't George W. Bush sum it up best? War is H*ll.

Txjake · #14 03-10-2010, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

didn't George W. Bush sum it up best? War is H*ll.

I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell.
William Tecumseh Sherman

Txjake · #15 03-10-2010, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

I saw the show on that and its kind of sickening. They are supposed to behave and respond like they are actually in the plane, but they know they are not. Simply pushing a button 3000 miles away to snuff out human life - no matter how low that life is - doesn't elevate our standing in the world. Its a little bit like graduating from video games to playing God.

well, we could forward deploy them to do the same from say, 300 miles away, to what end? However, I am reminded of this quote:
Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.
William Tecumseh Sherman

Every member of the armed services knows that the job of the force is to make war. That involves killing people. If you think the button pusher is affected by killing, then you simply cannot imagine how the 19 year old infantryman who thrusts his knife into an enemy's throat is affected by what is essentially the same act: killing the enemy. Most grunts would trade major body parts with a button pusher in able to see their families every day.