White House Drone Incident Exposes Key Security Gap 236
HughPickens.com writes The Washington Post reports that the intrusion by a recreational drone onto the White House lawn has exposed a security gap at the compound that the Secret Service has spent years studying but has so far been unable to fix. Commercial technology is available that can use a combination of sensitive radar and acoustic trackers to detect small drones, though coming up with an effective way to stop them has been more elusive. "To do something about the problem, you have to find it, you have to track it, you have to identify it and you have to decide what to do with it," says Frederick F. Roggero. "But especially in an urban environment, it would be tough to detect and tough to defeat kinetically without shooting it down and causing collateral damage." Most recreational drones, like the one that crashed Monday, weigh only a few pounds and lack the power to do much harm. Larger models that can carry payloads of up to 30 pounds are available on the market and are expected to become more common. The FAA imposes strict safety regulations on drones flown by government agencies or anyone who operates them for commercial purposes. In contrast, hardly any rules apply to people who fly drones as a hobby, other than FAA guidelines that advise them to keep the aircraft below 400 feet and five miles from an airport. "With the discovery of an unauthorized drone on the White House lawn, the eagle has crash-landed in Washington," says Senator Charles Schumer. "There is no stronger sign that clear FAA guidelines for drones are needed."
That'll stop the terrorists! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That'll stop the terrorists! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just reactionary policy.
"Oh noes! SOMETHING GOT INSIDE our SUPER SECURE compound!! Quick, Everybody PANIC!" ...
I really hate politicians. They never seem to actually think about what they are doing, before proposing then doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
I really hate politicians. They never seem to actually think about what they are doing, before proposing then doing it.
Trust me, Chuck Schumer knows exactly what he's doing. He never passes up an opportunity to restrict freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
THIS^^
These leaders that are supposed to be representing the peoples' will, seem to be so disconnected from what we the people want.
I think a larger problem is these asshats making this a lifetime career.
I know it stands a snowballs chance in hell, but we desperately need term limits to keep fresh blood more representative of the citizenry going through up there on a regular basis. These govt jo
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm. Are you saying that the peoples' will is to keep the skies over the White House open to drones of all sorts? Really?
Or are you just looking for any vaguely political story onto which to dump your anti-government bullshit...
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm. Are you saying that the peoples' will is to keep the skies over the White House open to drones of all sorts? Really?
Anything Schumer brews up won't be limited to White House airspace. It'll probably make it so you have to get a license from the FAA in order to fly a quadcopter in your yard. And in order to get a license, you'll need 20+ hours of training from a certified training facility, pass an FBI background check, etc.
and when the next one has a bomb? (Score:2)
Mount a claymore to the underside of a drone, fly it in at high speed doing evasive maneuvers, trigger it over the biggest group of people that it sees.
Could be fully autonomous, and it'd be really hard to shoot down when you're worried about where the bullets end up when they fall back down to earth. I suspect a mostly-plastic drone would be hard to see on radar.
Re: (Score:3)
A claymore mine is significantly heavy. A small autonomous drone is incapable of achieving the lift necessary to carry one. A drone large enough to carry one would be military grade hardware anyway. Military grade drones can be spotted quite easily.
The scenario you have painted here is a farce.
The typical payload of a domestic RC plane (the usual device to be refit as a domestic drone) is around 2 ounces. The extended battery and the flight control system take up the vast bulk of this. Hobby "Drones" ca
Re:and when the next one has a bomb? (Score:5, Informative)
The scenario you have painted here is a farce.
While I don't support regulation of drones outside of keeping them away from normal airplane traffic and outside private property, this is hardly a farce.
This [myfirstdrone.com] is a 4-lb payload drone that doesn't look more than 1 meter wide. There is even a video showing it dropping a small watermelon from 250ft [youtube.com].
A M18 Claymore [wikipedia.org] is 3.5 lbs, so this drone could carry one without issue.
Re: (Score:2)
A vehicle with that much lift capacity could instead have actual aimable guns installed, or have several pounds of high explosive installed. (Enough to actually do some damage)
Then again, we have systems in place already to detect terrorist activity before they strike already. How does restricting the use of hobby drones (most of which are NOT heavy lifters, like that one, due to cost) make a significant improvement to detection and prevention of attacks that is enough to justify the civil collateral damag
Re: (Score:2)
You know, the people using 9/11 to justify all of their changes are just as annoying as your type: the ones to turn up their nose, to scoff at everything, and discount everyone as an incompetent fool.
What are you actually proposing? Are you saying that drones carrying 40lb of payload shouldn't be a topic to consider? Are you saying that we shouldn't worry because the feds should catch such plots before they get to the staging stage? You want us to put all of our security hopes on one layer of security on
Re: (Score:2)
A 40lb payload would require a mammoth sized drone, which would be EASILY detected by radar. Thus, does not fit the problem cited.
The 4lb payload quadcopter cited is in the grey zone. It is thin, and thus would be hard to detect with radar. However, it is unlikely to be able to travel any considerable distance. This means to be deployed, it has to be deployed in close proximity to the target. A better solution than blanket "No peons, you cant own drones with that weight class!" would be like what we have
Re: (Score:2)
A 40lb payload would require a mammoth sized drone, which would be EASILY detected by radar. Thus, does not fit the problem cited.
A drone 'copter can fly just above treetops, or even below the treetops if actively navigated, and easily avoid detection by radar. The ground clutter would hide it very well until it was too late to do much about it.
A better solution than blanket "No peons, you cant own drones with that weight class!" would be like what we have with guns near schools. ... That kind of regulation would be OK, and would work
Why yes, because nobody who wants to do something illegal with such a drone would ever violate an exclusion zone. Nobody would ever think of putting a drone in the back of a pickup truck, driving down Pennsylvania Avenue, and launching it while passing by The White House.
Re: (Score:2)
Just as suspected, he had no ideas that have any chance of working in the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you have a vice president? And if he is also hit a new one is only an election away.
What is scariest is that Biden is a heartbeat away. Thanks for pointing that out.
Now to present a politically balanced scare -- the next in line if Biden is "also hit" is John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the house. Following him is currently Orrin Hatch, the Republican President Pro-Tem of the Senate.
No, there will be no election until the next regular presidential election.
Don't imagine that it cannot happen. This is how Leslie Lynch King became the first and only person in US history to beco
Re: (Score:2)
Why care that you keep living? Don't your parents have other kids? If not, they can create more.
What sort of reasoning is that. You don't think killing our president is something we should strive to prevent, even if we have systems for finding replacements? You think an open seat in the cabinet would be the only outcome of such an event?
restricting drones generally doesn't make sense (Score:2)
What does make sense is a radar/acoustic/lidar "fence", with some sort of point-defence laser/maser/EMP/etc system to disable drones that enter restricted airspace around sensitive areas.
On of the issues will be minimizing collateral damage--debris raining down on people, backscatter from the radiation pulse, missed shots hitting innocent people/equipment, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
This [myfirstdrone.com] is a 4-lb payload drone that doesn't look more than 1 meter wide. ...
A M18 Claymore [wikipedia.org] is 3.5 lbs, so this drone could carry one without issue.
!! That's really cool! Home-brew, huh? Neat.
But I can't do that -- my cheap $100 drone doesn't hardly carry any weight. I guess I'll just add razor-blades to the propellers and slice the watermelon by running into it. Once, anyway.
Claymores and Mexican meth drones (Score:2)
A claymore mine is significantly heavy. A small autonomous drone is incapable of achieving the lift necessary to carry one. A drone large enough to carry one would be military grade hardware anyway. Military grade drones can be spotted quite easily.
The scenario you have painted here is a farce.
The typical payload of a domestic RC plane (the usual device to be refit as a domestic drone) is around 2 ounces. The extended battery and the flight control system take up the vast bulk of this. Hobby "Drones" can't carry much more than a ball point pen around.
According to Wikipedia, a Claymore weights 3.5 pounds. The "Mexican Meth Drone" that crashed in a Tijuana parking lot recently was carrying 6 pounds of drugs, and pictures of it don't scream "military grade hardware". Granted they got greedy and overloaded it, but sounds like 3.5 pounds would have been no problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but it would probably ruin your drone. I don't think anyone would be interested in that.
Re: (Score:2)
I really hate politicians. They never seem to actually think about what they are doing, before proposing then doing it.
They match the voters.
Re: (Score:2)
Now I want to see the whitehouse enact absurdly draconian security after some enterprising people unleash some cyber-roaches [engadget.com] and some augmented mice [nationalgeographic.com] (article is on remote controlled rats, but is over 10yrs old. By now the tech should be small enough to deploy on mice) on them.
Just dump shittons of them on the whitehouse one day. Don't even bother to remote control them. Just let the vermin do what vermin do best; seeking out nooks and crannies in the security system there and setting up residence. All thos
Re: (Score:3)
Let's have no regulations at all for the same reason!
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, the canard of "Some regulations are bad, thus remove ALL regulations! Genius!" --- You realize how this is absurd, right?
It's also not what I was saying. I want politicians to think about what they are proposing with seriousness and a sense of perspective. Not blindly shooting from the hip. Repealing all regulations would be a clear-cut case of doing the latter, not the former.
Meh.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't up to politicians to think about what they're proposing. It's up to the people they serve to agree or disagree with it.
And how do you know they're blindly shooting from the hip. How do you know what studies they have done about their system, which experts and consultants they had? Can you provide links to that info so that the rest of the class can get up to speed? Or are you just blindly regurgitating the 'government is incompetent' mantra.
Re:That'll stop the terrorists! (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, we'll just outlaw hobby drones. We can add that to outlawed real chemistry kits and outlawed lasers.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny to see people complain about knee-jerk reactions with a massive knee jerk of their own.
Chemistry kits and lasers aren't outlawed, so neither of the things are true. Why was this modded up?
Certain chemicals aren't commonly included in chemistry kits marketed for children for liability reasons. Make of that what you will, but that is still a long ways from "outlawed". In fact, I'd guess that most of the things that you might have found in those kids are still easy enough to find. They just don't come in
Re: (Score:2)
No but you could be pretty sure that someone with an RC aircraft in the zone should not have one.
Captain, ve haf ein Problemm... (Score:2)
Ve haf not yet a system zu Look in ze Minds of all ze Peasants...
Here it comes (Score:4, Insightful)
The Secret Serpents need X millions of dollars to provide a 100% effective defense against a $50 toy. Because terrorists!
and when the next one is carrying explosives? (Score:2)
It wouldn't take a huge drone to bring in a big enough bomb to do major damage. Heck, you could probably put a rifle on some of the bigger ones.
It'd be really hard to shoot down a mostly-plastic drone coming in at high speed doing evasive maneuvers.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, clearly we must ban drones, and planes, and explosives, and rifles, and pistols, and slingshots/catapults/trebuchets, and vests, and cars/trucks, and swords, and bullets, and gunpowder, and books about gunpowder, and dynamite, and hydrogen, propane, methane--just any gas on the periodic table in general (helium is okay, I guess), that RC car you had when you were a kid, bows/staves and Renaissance Fairs where they might be trafficked, that show Mythbusters, and...
Oh fuck it, let's just ban people. Onl
banning is not the answer (Score:2)
Nowhere did I call for banning drones, I just pointed out that they're a real issue, not some invented thing.
Personally I think the solution for drones would be a sensor net combined with some kind of EM weapon (laser/maser/EMP/etc.) to shoot down the drone before it gets to the intended target.
Re: (Score:2)
Drone's aren't a real issue. They haven't been an issue, and they are likely not to be an issue.
The simple $2 fix is to jam the frequencies used by drones. Doesn't even need to be all that powerful, just directional antenna pointed at the drone.
Re: (Score:2)
That toy could be a professional level drone, carrying the same payload a briefcase could. And we still inspect briefcases, right?
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect you could also use an unregulated trebuchet to launch something over a fence, or perhaps an unauthorized weather balloon with a payload to drop something on your neighbor's lawn from altitude. Or a slingshot (although those might be illegal within city limits). The notion of a serious "security gap" is farcical because any reasonably intelligent person could come up with a number of clever ways to outwit fences and exclusion zones.
Hey you kids . . . (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
LOL ... somehow the idea of a medieval siege engine bypassing some of the most sophisticated security sounds utterly hilarious.
One would hope you couldn't set such a thing up and not have anybody notice.
Otherwise, that could seriously change "modern" warfare. "Umm, general, they seem to be using things made of rope, wood, and stone ... none of our technology seems to have any effect."
Hehe ... I'm going to laugh about that
Re: (Score:3)
Otherwise, that could seriously change "modern" warfare. "Umm, general, they seem to be using things made of rope, wood, and stone ... none of our technology seems to have any effect."
Heh. Have you read Poul Anderson's The High Crusade? A medieval English village beats a small extraterrestrial invasion force, in part because of just that.
Re: (Score:2)
One would hope you couldn't set such a thing up and not have anybody notice.
A three-man slingshot [slipperybrick.com] could be set up in ten seconds. Enough to deliver a fairly substantial payload.
Re: (Score:3)
But; this is the President's lawn! Not the lawn of a commoner. We're all equal, of course; however, some are more equal than others.
movie stars too... (Score:2)
Apparently there is a company doing booming business selling drone detection systems to movie stars and other famous people. Gives them enough warning to cover up or go inside.
So anyone with money can get drone detection already. Drone destruction might be another story...though I wouldn't be surprised if that comes eventually too.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
The goal of these kinds of security measures isn't to prevent people with malicious intent from breaking them. That is, obviously, impossible. It is to make sure people without malicious intent don't engage in activities which are indistinguishable from malicious activity. That in turn means that if you see people engaging in apparent malicious activity, you can safely assume they are, and operate accordingly (i.e. shoot them, arrest them, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect you could also use an unregulated trebuchet to launch something over a fence, or perhaps an unauthorized weather balloon with a payload to drop something on your neighbor's lawn from altitude. Or a slingshot (although those might be illegal within city limits). The notion of a serious "security gap" is farcical because any reasonably intelligent person could come up with a number of clever ways to outwit fences and exclusion zones.
Yup. If it is THAT important to protect the president's life, then he shouldn't be anywhere near a window or wall that isn't armored.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine the difference between an RC plane and a drone is the same as it is between a helicopter and a plane. Could you easily fly an airplane inside the building through an open window? Could you hide yourself behind a wall, out of view of a camera in a plane? No, you'd have to plan your approach far ahead to hit a target with any precision, and obviously you couldn't just hover.
Drones lower the barriers to entry for highly targeted attacks, where you probably might need some laser guided weapon, whic
How to safely shoot down (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure they can figure out a way to shoot a net with weighted ends that could probably knock one of these out of the air, and not cause any or too much damage if it misses.
How about a shotgun? (Score:3)
A shotgun firing light shot (like #9, commonly used for skeet) can powder a clay target but quickly loses energy.
Where I used to shoot clay targets they had a duck tower, basically a target thrower mounted on tower of 25' or so. You'd shoot the targets from various stations around the tower. The idea was to simulate shooting flying ducks, so everyone shoots up at a steep angle.
Back out front of the clubhouse you would occasionally hear pellets hitting the metal roof of the building and once in a while f
Re: (Score:2)
Have you been injured by falling buckshot fired at drone? Have you or loved one been traumatized by the sound of a shotgun near the White House? Then please call the Law Offices of Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe as we may be entitled to a large monetary payout on your behalf. Many people across the country have reported these sorts of Medical Issues to us and we feel empowered to Put the Law On Your Side. Our operators are standing by to take your call and your credit card number. Don't delay, failure to contact
Re: (Score:2)
Buckshot is most often #00 which is the size of a .38 caliber bullet. That would definitely hurt if dropped from 50 feet or higher.
#9 is .080 in diameter. It'd like being hit was a handful of sand.
Stronger regs ? Try a better radar (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, regulate the entire country because somebody's toy landed on the lawn at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave ?
Re: (Score:3)
Better Radar?
Let me guess, you have a degree in liberal arts.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd lay in but I already strongly suspect you have no idea what you are talking about.
So please tell why a radar system would be in some way inadequate to detecting drones, or even operating in an offensive mode to burn out their electrical systems.
shooting down with laser has problems (Score:2)
I thought of point defence laser too, but it's got problems. You'd have to be awfully careful about where it was pointing when it fired, otherwise you'd run the risk of blinding civilians in any buildings within line-of-sight.
Realistically you'd probably be better off with a number of lasers mounted around the perimeter so that they shooting more-or-less upwards. Less chance of collateral damage that way.
Re: (Score:2)
If you shield a drone it becomes heavier and then needs to be bigger. Also at that point the drone needs to either be self guiding or have a communication/control system that won't be knocked out. You get the old little more weight little more propulsion to carry the weight cycle going and all of a sudden your drone isn't small anymore.
"Radar, backed up by lidar and acoustic sensors, is the best route. Threat mitigation is best handled by a point defense laser. End of story."
That seems an incredibly strong
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A gun that shoots a weighted net or even just secret service guys with bolas could completely mess up any hobby grade quad copter and not damage any nearby buildings.
Re: (Score:2)
Macro-object anti-virus protection in 3 dimensions. Develop macrophages that identify, target, and dispose of invading objects with little to no collateral damage to surrounding areas (residential, for example), little to no disturbance to the area on an on-going basis. Not just for the White House, but for lots of other attractive targets (industry centers, nuke plants, famous attractions, etc.) A new industry becomes public as well as a new operational environment we'll all be getting used to.
"
Re: (Score:2)
Phased Array Radars can be focused on incoming targets and burn out their electronics. Small drones should be easy meat for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a perfect use for laser beam weapons. 10 points extra if they are shot from the White House pool full of sharks.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a bigger issue is how to stop them without having collateral damage to the constitution.
might blind someone if you're shooting low (Score:2)
Unless you're shooting steeply upwards, a miss might blind someone. Heck, if it's bright enough even the backscatter from hitting the drone might cause eye damage.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't thinking as absurdly as you should be!
You should jump straight to Poe's Law territory!
"I mean, Imagine of a terrorist put an ounce of anthrax spores on there with a CO2 cartridge powered delivery system! They could fly right into the white house and POOF! Dead president!"
Never-mind that when you think about things,literally EVERYTHING is deadly when applied the right way. For the above (possible, but wtf) scenario, the solution is to better regulate the supply of deadly biological agents, not to
Terrorists don't actually follow the rules (Score:5, Insightful)
TFS says that they don't have a good way to stop a small drone or remote-control plane.
Therefore, we should make it illegal to fly a hobby toy _______. (Fill in the blank with your favorite regulation).
I guess they didn't notice that the bad guys don't CARE whether or not it's illegal to use this toy in the city / at night / near Washington / without permission / whatever. The vexing thing about terrorists is that they don't follow the rules, so hanging the rules doesn't effect them - it only effects us.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I am sure all that alcohol she dank while pregnant has contributed to your having an Affective Disorder. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Stupidity is contagious! [wsj.com]
Oh no! I've been infected!
Factually, they can't (Score:2)
> they can now stop you from launching/operating in the public location before you fly the drone into the private/secure location.
They didn't even SEE this guy operating it outside the White House fence, and he wasn't hiding. The terrorist would be hiding in his van, controlling the drone from there. Exactly how can they stop what they can't see?
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because no one has ever been arrested for possession of a weapon and quite likely prevented from committing a crime. A law doesn't block a criminal, but it gives law enforcement more power in finding those breaking it, such as noticing a gun in someone's belt. If guns were legal, do you think it would be easy to pick out who is and isn't a criminal? Similarly, if drones are outlawed within a specific radius of the White House, anyone that looks like they have the equipment, or seem to be controlli
Really? (Score:2)
Seems like it would be easy(given a military budget anyway) to take one out once you detect it. Lasers should be safe in an urban environment given a tracking system that is robust enough. If you still wanted to use a projectile, you could go with something like dry ice and just send a projectile sized appropriately for the distance you need to shoot. If you miss, it melts before it causes too much collateral damage. Hell, even a 'net gun' or something like it could take out a modern drone.
If the smart
Re: (Score:2)
This is the secret service. They want to shoot drones with a 50mm Howitzer that uses 00 buckshot rounds.
It's not a drone (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a toy helicopter. We don't need the FAA to do anything about this - but nannies never let a good "crisis" go to waste...
Exactly.... (Score:3)
The word "drone" itself conjures up all sorts of fear in the general public, so of course they're going to milk this situation for all it's worth.
Let's be realistic though... You could probably drive a small radio controlled car up to the front entrance of the White House too, with some payload like a bomb on it -- and that's been possible for long before the toy drones/helicopters were available on the mass market.
There's probably not anything you can or should do about this stuff beyond the systems they
What's the difference between a drone and a bird? (Score:2)
Most recreational drones, like the one that crashed Monday, weigh only a few pounds and lack the power to do much harm.
So is about every bird in existence that flies (okay, most of them are under a pound, but there are a few larger ones [wikipedia.org].). What are you going to do? Shoot all birds down that cross the fence around the White House?
Trained Falcons !! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking a mote with sharks, with lasers on their heads. Maybe we can combine our efforts.
Re: (Score:2)
building security radars next? (Score:2)
They are just looking for an excuse to ban drones (Score:2)
Bad guys don't follow rules (Score:2)
This issue is at the core of a lot of misunderstandings about security in general I see. People expect to be able to solve security problems by creating a framework of rules. Sometimes they're societal rules (aka laws), sometimes they're software like writing a client that can only access a server in a particular way, and assuming no one can access your server in a way not supported by your client (hint: other people can write code, too).
Writing rules won't keep people intent on harm from flying drones at
New Guidelines? (Score:2)
"With the discovery of an unauthorized drone on the White House lawn, the eagle has crash-landed in Washington," says Senator Charles Schumer. "There is no stronger sign that clear FAA guidelines for drones are needed."
Umm, Chuck, quick heads up: "Don't fly over the White House" is already a rule. And you can tell the operator knew, because he or she didn't ask for it back. You are a despicable opportunist.
Water water everywhere (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or a microwave energy weapon similar to what is used on crowds. Presumably this would disable anything without lots of shielding or any exposed antennas.
Why fly at 3AM? (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, why was the person flying the drone at 3AM?
The only reason I can think of is it was someone who had a motive to embarrass the security.
Re: (Score:2)
Sharks with Lasers! (Score:2)
How is it possible I am the first, and only person to think of this obvious solution? What is DARPA for after all anyway?
This is ridiculous (Score:2)
This incident seems fishy (Score:3)
The NY Times' article on this said a "government employee" (no name, no affiliation) had come forward to claim the drone and said he was flying it recreationally and that the Secret Service had interviewed him and said that all evidence indicated this was the case.
This seems odd -- who flies a drone recreationally in the vicinity of the White House at 3:30 AM? Or anywhere in DC for that matter. And a government employee? If you were a government employee, wouldn't you generally choose to avoid flying your drone around ten zillion government buildings
Why was he identified as a "government employee"? How likely is that the Secret Service is going to just accept a "oops, my bad" explanation?
Something about this seems off.
Trap & Skeet (Score:2)
Anyone smell a set up? (Score:2)
There has been a lot of talk and posturing about controlling drones but not enough to take action on.
buy a drone at wal-mart, toss it on the White House lawn, then raise a fuss over how it got there and what can be done. NOW you have enough to take action on.
A protective bubble! (Score:2)
I'm surprised no ones suggested building a dome over the White House yet.
Re: (Score:2)
High-pressure, wide-spread water canons should take out low-flying drones pretty quickly. The only advanced tech bit would be the targeting system.
Cool! Let's turn the White House into a giant fountain. That should spruce up the neighborhood nicely.
Really, the problem isn't the drone. It's the White House. If it wasn't there, then all of this whining and wailing would never see the light of day.
We just need to move the White House away from everyone who could possibly want to hurt it's inhabitants. Given our new found relationship with Cuba, I'm going to suggest we move the complex down to Guantanamo Bay.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, it is the target that's the problem. We should dig underground. Move all of our goverment infrastructure out of sight. Ground all planes and travel by underground trains. Also, all citizens should put their heads in holes in the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Running through a crowd with some flour and yelling 'Anthrax' would do roughly the same thing.
Chill out.
Re:Eveyone complaining... (Score:4, Informative)
The most powerful IED that could be transported by a recreational drone would be one carrying a model rocket engine. These contain PETN solid fuel, which is a high explosive. With clever design, this solid fuel engine could be used to make a small explosion.
The problem? This would be at most enough to damage a few windows, and maybe maim somebody at point blank range.
Thinking like yours would lead to the pre-emptive banning of not only hobby RC controlled aircraft, but also hobby rocketry, and a whole shitload of other innocent hobbies-- all because "Whoooo! Something spooky but unlikely COULD happen, so in order to be "PERFECTLY SAFE", All those things have to be preemptively banned! You dont want somebody to be HURT do you!?"
When considering civil policy, one has to weigh in the direct AND indirect costs of a policy change on the standard of living and quality of life of the people who are going to be living under that policy. There is too much collateral damage for policy of this kind to justify it, even if it could maybe, theoretically, save a life.
Other things that can be used to make IEDs? A bag of flour and a box fan with a cigarette lighter.
You REALLY need to distance yourself from the "MUST FEEL SAFE AT ANY COST!" programming that the government has been pushing. Rational evaluation of that kind of policy shows, consistently, that it leads to a less desirable future than allowing the "Oooh, scary!" things to exist.
disagree (Score:2)
The most powerful IED that could be transported by a recreational drone would be one carrying a model rocket engine. These contain PETN solid fuel, which is a high explosive. With clever design, this solid fuel engine could be used to make a small explosion. The problem? This would be at most enough to damage a few windows, and maybe maim somebody at point blank range.
What's "recreational" in this context?
The M18A1Claymore mine weighs under 4lbs and fires roughly seven hundred steel pellets like a shotgun. The proposed Amazon Prime Air drones could carry a bit over 5 lbs, so could easily mount a Claymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Solution: make it illegal for amazon to deliver mines to the whitehouse using drones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
the Navy *does* have some recently-deployed point defense laser technology designed to shoot down incoming cruise missiles
The problem is that the incoming drone could easily be flying below tree-top height. Like, 20 feet off the ground. Laser counter measures would be shooting at a target that would have large office buildings and other structures directly behind it.