It’s cute until it explodes and sprays you in the face! 
These are cool –
-
A commercially available drone with a 20 hour flight time and 50 kg payload. Very pricey though, almost $18,000
-
A 6 bladed copter with GPS, a 30 minute flight time and 3 kg payload. I’m not seeing a price on this one though.
And here are the very next words that came out of his mouth that were not in the story: “And I think that there are ways to deal with that that.”
Which is what I’ve been saying!
I didn’t say UAVs are “expensive,” I said that thy are more expensive than various other traditional methods of attack. I focused on the President because that’s the issue YOU raised in the OP. And I never said snipers and cat bombs “do everything they need to terrorize a population.” I said that those weapons are much easier to obtain, train, and use, also at much lower cost.
Look, I know we disagree on this. But can we shake hands and agree that we will actually read and reflect accurately what the other is saying?
I suppose cat bombs are pretty cheap is you can pick one up in an alley.
Walter Wager used R/C planes as the method of attack in Blue Moon back in the 70s. They’ve only gotten more powerful and accurate in the years since.
The mistake I think we are both making is concentrating on Al Qaeda when the more serious and realistic threat will be home grown terrorist. Some kid that wants to be more than a just another school shooter and has daddy’s money to play with or some wack job that just wants the fame by being the first to do it. Hell, they might even get away with it a couple of times because of the novelty. I’m just saying, it’s going happen and it’s not going to make sense.
It won’t be long before a drone (in the sense of any unmanned remotely controlled aircraft) is used to kill someone. I’m sure it’s happened already accidently, if nothing else than a recent incident where a helicopter operator killed himself when the aircraft hit his head. They aren’t called choppers for nuthin’. A very fast jet powered plane could easily kill someone with a direct hit, they can reach hundreds of miles per hour. Even a hit within in a few feet wouldn’t require a lot of explosives to be deadly. Getting to the president is very difficult but taking out some guy you have a grudge against wouldn’t be hard. If you did want to hit the president you’d use a bunch of smaller aircraft. Each one will need an operator, and each one could be expensive, quality jet engines can cost thousands of dollars even at model size. Each operator would need a view of where the president is standing so that’s a tough problem with the Secret Service out looking for things like that when they’re not busy getting drunk. Cameras mounted in the aircraft aren’t unrealistic but that would require much greater skill in the operators. The operators could develop that skill easily though, and then they wouldn’t have to be exposed to operate the vehicles.
Meowch! I’m feline dumb now.
Until your last couple of points, I have a hard time disagreeing with you. But much like the dirty bomb paranoia of ten years ago, I think it is very long, tough run for a short slide. Because of the difficulty and effort that would have to go into it, I’ll put a large wager that any terrorist with half a brain will forgo those efforts to easier and much more effective attacks.
So can a rifle, with which a reasonably competent person can assassinate a public figure from hundreds or meters away. And a rifle is a LOT cheaper.
Drones are, by their very nature, devices used by rich countries to kill without fear of retribution. It doesn’t really make a great deal of sense for a terrorist seeking to kill a particular person to employ such an expensive, difficult, and rather less-than-stealthy tool, when so many cheap, easy, and inconspicuous tools are available.
“Drones” (aka remote-controlled model airplanes, available since when?) also require relatively friendly terrain - they are slow and cumbersome - any half-decent military could shoot one down.
Pakistan allowed the US to kill people on its soil only after the US killed one of Pakistan’s “public enemy #1” which they had missed.
Any why could a drone not be equipped with a GPS receiver and just enough intelligence to guide it to a pre-programmed XYX target? It doesn’t need to know what is at that location, only to throw a switch once it was within 2 meters of it. Podium or 14th Tee - it really doesn’t need to know.
Or just a regular plane? What can a drone do that a person in plane can’t do already? Can they get around undetected because of their size?
I’m not so convinced that drones actually change things as much as people think. Isn’t the main difference just that you don’t have to pay someone to be a pilot, or risk their life? If you take that out of the equation, isn’t the only real difference just automation and size?
What you fail to understand is that drones are new and therefore evil, and therefore the poor downtrodden terrorists have a moral obligation to kill Americans with drones in order to show us how wrong we were.
alot of rumore and alot of testing have been done ona military stand point and is now getting into the civilian world aspect
how is one for you all, how do you all know if it could have happened already but yet it has not been exposed …
i mean alot of unprofessional individuals are throwing out the orders lately and not just going for what it is not intended for …
Not all drones are planes - many are mini-helicopters (about 2’x2’), and are amazingly agile.
And as noted above they can achieve a speed of 15 m/s, which translate over to 33 mph. Which means they could be launched and at a target 3 miles away flying at or below tree top level in 6 minutes. Not much time to be noticed. Anti-aircraft guns would be useless against this type of vehicle as you would be most likely be shooting down at them; you would have to shoot them down like skeet. And even then by the time you noticed one it would out of range.
Is it that much of a stretch to think that they will get faster and carry heaver payloads in the very near future? And that someone seeking attention will weaponize one?
Or the Koch brothers in their limo on the way to the office.
Or the window of a conference room where a board of directors or the creative team of your competitor or the competitor of the company whose stock you own is meeting.
Lesson: Be Very Careful of glad-handed backslapping approval for things which could very easily be turned on your icons to make your happy day quite sad.
This is true, but all it really means that a couple security team members won’t be toting Uzis but will be toting high capacity magazine shotguns on straps under their armpits instead.
Number 3 shells, while not the best against people, will stop these TYCO buzz-bombs fairly effectively.
These R/C planes can carry quite a bit of explosives packed into the fuselage. They are fast, fairly easy to fly and have a nice bit of range. A few cameras or a decent spotter and you could take out a limo or grandstand with ease.