To me it seem obvious that some group, foreign or domestic is going to strike at a high level individual (or group) with a civilian drone (or group of drones) carrying high explosives and shrapnel. In fact I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet and it’s only a question of when.
What is to keep someone who finds out that the President is going to give a commencement speech at major college and pre-program in the podium location into a fleet of drones and set them off from say 3 miles away once he gets on stage? Is the technology to do this without radio feedback possible yet? Fly by camera way-point perhaps? If not, when? And what are the technical hurdles and possible defenses?
Basically I see the Al Qaeda doing this as revenge for all the drone attacks we have made over the last ten years because it’s fairly cheap and would play into a new tactic of not targeting large civilian targets like the WTC and the repercussions that came with that.
I take the opposite view, in that I think it will be a very long time before such an attack were in any way feasible or desirable. I don’t think it is a question of when. To the contrary, consider the disadvantages:
The UAV would be a complex system, requiring sensors to be integrated with weapons and/or explosives.
Autonomy for such a UAV is a very long way off, even for military purposes. By autonomy, I mean not only the ability to navigate, but also the ability to identify and discriminate a target. That is a huge layer of complexity, not to mention cost.
Since autonomy is not feasible (probably for a couple decades), the UAV must use radio signals for control. It is trivially easy to jam, interfere, or geolocate those types of signals.
Somebody is going to notice a UAV heading toward the President and do something about it. Small UAVs move slowly, and people notice them, generally.
Depending on the size of the UAV, a considerable area of land may be required to launch the aircraft. That makes such an operation more complex.
Here’s the thing, anyone with half a brain can think up much more low tech and reliable ways to carry out violence. Why would anyone want to spend more money on a lower chance of success?
To send a message that turn about is fair play by taking out a high profile target? Doesn’t have to be the POTUS, could be senator or Chief Justice or the Koch brothers. How much protection do they really have and who would be jamming signals around them?
Sure, and maybe Al Qaida will mount an Abottabad-style raid on the White House using helicopters and night vision equipment. Just to send a message.
Let’s just assume that it takes ‘x’ dollars to design the kind of drone you’re talking about. With that same amount of money, they could probably build ‘z’ times more car bombs, which can be extremely effective. Do you think AQ would favor one expensive strike that will probably fail to send a message, or many multiples of car bombs to actually sow violence and dischord?
Drones can be bought off the shelf. Today. You just need one big enough to carry an IED to the target.
True
Yes, you can theoretically jam all radio / cell phone signals in a three mile radius around every vaguely important person in the United States. The actual implementation of this might be non trivial
So launch two and take out Biden!
Most currently available drones are vertical takeoff helicopter like things
The only real drawback is payload. The kind of drones that you can buy off the shelf have pretty much zero carrying capacity. Of course if the drone that Amazon wants to develop ever gets off the ground…
If you tried it in the US, it would pretty much be a suicide mission, and I’m sure the FBI is tracking drone sales and keeping an eye on Crazy Abdul’s Drone Operator Training Madrasa.
And an integrated system to control the explosive, leading to the later point about vertical takeoff…
It’s also very easy to intercept those signals, since they are virtually all unencrypted and in known bands. The point is that if authorities have any reason to suspect that a UAV may be used against a valuable target, the technology to detect the aircraft is far more accessible to the Secret Service than drone technology is to Al Qaida.
Which, as you correctly point out, have virtually no payload capacity. To gain payload, you need a larger aircraft, which needs more space to launch. Which is my point.
All you need is a stick of dynamite with a detonator attached to a drone. They already carry cameras and drones are already in development to carry more weight. Is the secret service out on the golf course with a congressman and radio jammers? The drone itself becomes part of the shrapnel.
These toys are already flying all over the place and nobody is jamming them. You do not have to go to drone school to learn how to fly one. Do you really think that a fat assed congressman could outrun one on the golf course in time to warn the secret service to start jamming signals? Do you realize that part of my question was when will the technology be available? Your answer was never, so don’t take it so bad if I roll my eyes at you. :rolleyes:
While parts of this are factual (such as the current state of technology for these things), the question overall calls for a lot of speculation and opinion. So, off to IMHO it goes.
Moving thread from General Questions to In My Humble Opinion.
Your determination that it is inevitable that these attacks are going to happen is based on several assumptions that cry out for correction, both because of technical reasons and Al Qaida’s overwhelming preference for low-tech, low-cost, and highly effective violence. Don’t get upset at me for trying in good faith to correct those mistaken assumptions.
And again I say so what? How many of those jammers are out there and ready to go at a moments notice. And you seem to be of opinion that technology will never advance, but the FAA is thinking otherwise. By your thinking cell phones would never have become cheaply available to the masses because car phones were huge bricks that only rich people could afford. Or perhaps you fear that by talking about it that it will give some people ideas.
Seems to me that if guys like us can think of it, the Secret Service can as well. I’d be willing to be they’ve got a drone spotter around every event and probably an anti-drone weapon as well.
No, that’s not what I think. I guess you’re just mad at me for not agreeing with you, for the reasons already posted, and rather than countering what I’ve posted, you make up a straw man that I think technology will never advance.
What I’ve said is that against a well protected target, UAVs are impractical because of cost and countermeasures. Against less well protected targets, they are impractical because of the cost, too. If an unprotected dignitary is walking alone on a golf course, he can simply be assassinated using a $200 firearm, rather than an excessively complex remote control device. And given the history of Al Qaida operations, there’s simply no debate at all that low-cost, low-technology solutions are sought for their plots. They have no need for smart weapons when a suicide bomber is so much easier to train, equip and operate.
“I do fear that if Al Qaeda can develop a drone, its first thought will be to use it to kill our president, and senior officials and senior officers,” Blair said during a conference call with reporters. "It is possible without a great deal of intelligence to do something with a drone you cannot do with a high-powered rifle or driving a car full of explosives and other ways terrorists now use to try killing senior officials," he said.
They could also be used to take down airplanes; just fly one into an engine of a jet taking off or landing. Like a flock of geese.
My problem with your responses is that A) you claim that they are expensive when they are getting cheaper and that terrorist are required to be cost conscious, B) that the only target of note you seem to be concerned about is the the POTUS and C) that snipers and car bombs can do everything that they need to terrorize a population.
Part of my theory and concern is that want to strike fear into the American political class in the same way they have fear of walking around South Yemen. Al Qaeda could change their tactics from attacking civilians to doing in politicians and claim moral high ground; the right of revenge. What better way that to attack your enemy than with a low tech version of what we are presently using against them? It would be ironic in that we let the genie out of the bottle.
I pretty much agree with the OP. It is inevitable. and not too far away IMO.
A successful attack on the President would probably by a hundred times harder than attack on other relatively high-level government officials though. So maybe there will be an attack on a Senator or Representative, or a state governor. I would be willing to bet their security teams aren’t normally walking around with radio gear to jam drone aircraft.
As far as payload, you only need an ounce or two, maybe less, of high explosive to kill somebody, if you can deliver it accurately enough. An M67 hand grenade has about 7 ounces of explosive in it, and a kill radius of 5 meters, according to Wiki. It’s total weight is 14 ounces.
The very first consumer RC aircraft I looked up (XProHeli XP2 Quadcopte)has a payload of 14.1 ounces. That’s probably no big enough – for instance I don’t know whether its battery would be payload or not. But clearly, that kind of weight is going to be well within the capacity of some craft.
According to this CNN story, terrorist groups have already launched drone aircraft attacks against Israel, and the FBI has alredy arrested and convicted people of planning attacks using RC aircraft.
9/11 succeeded because the authorities weren’t looking. Since then Al Qada has nothing (in the US). There’s dozens of ways a terrorist could mount an attack, but they haven’t done so. Planning something on the back of an envelope is easy. The logistics of carrying out any large scale attack are pretty difficult if the FBI, NSA etc is actively looking out for you.