Slashdot Mirror
DIY Cruise Missile Grounded
PSaltyDS writes "The DIY Cruise Missile project from New Zealand has been previously covered on /., but the BBC now reports that Bruce Simpson has been forced to shutdown by his government. His project web site says 'The New Zealand government has moved aggressively to shut down this project -- and by using quite unscrupulous methods which appear to be in breach of the law.'"
"The authorities here finally decided to bankrupt me over a tax debt and I have now had to give the missile to a friend for safe keeping."
You would think that people would learn. If you're going to skirt the edge of the legal system, always pay your taxes!
Remember, Al Capone was jailed for tax evasion, not organized criminal activity. His claim that "The government can't collect legal taxes from illegal money." (1) held no more water than Simpson's claim that the government is trying to "bankrupt" him.
And speaking of Simpsons...
Lisa: Bart. Bart! What are you doing? We've got to get out of here.
Bart: Target sighted. Launching air-to-nerd missile!
[launches a missile model, hitting Lisa]
Lisa: Owww!
- Sideshow Bob's Last Gleaming
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
From the BBC site:
he believes he has proved his point - "that by using off-the-shelf technology in a suburban garage a terrorist can create a weapon against which there is no effective defence.
One would think a simple hand-delivered bomb would suffice.
Grr! Arg!
However, there have also been a number of people who claim I'm overstating the case and that it's not possible to build a real cruise missile without access to sophisticated gear, specialist tools and information not readily available outside the military.
You don't need a *real* cruise missile, you just need a model aircraft. In fact, I've been thinking about getting one (not to build a missile, of course, but just to play with). There are even ones with gas turbines. Hell, do you really need a lot of explosives to terrorize someone/some group? You could even just load a model aircraft up with some colored gas, dump it over a group of people, and probably someone would get trampled to death in the rush to escape. I'm not a chemist, but I'm sure there's a heavier than air colored gas that's nonlethal that can be easily obtained. Even a model helicopter would be fine.
You mean like 'guns'? Oh, but those are self-defense tools. Right. Let's take the NRA stance 'Homebuilt Cruise Missles don't kill people, people with homebuilt cruise missles kill people!'. Guns exist to kill/maim/destroy things ( be they other people, animals, or else ). Should they be likewise prohibited from possesion? ( Note there is a distinction between having the plans for how a gun works and possessing a gun ).
---
Segmentation Fault ( core dumped )
That if a privateer can build a cruise missile then all the billions the US is spending on Anti ICBM technology is money down the drain.
If either terrorists or a foreign power want the strike the US then holing up in the Ozarks and building a cruise missile out of a combination of publically available and smuggled components seems a pretty plausible way to do it.
I'm sorry to say it because I don't have a solution either, but making us take off our shoes at the airport etc. is an utter waste of time - terrorism is way too easy, just look at Iraq currently with GI checkpoints and patrols everywhere, even martial law doesn't fix the problem.
Politics is the only answer, coming up with some final solutions in the middle east...
Bruce has put together a specification and built some bits for a device that could theoretically fly some distance in a controlled manner.
But a device to cruise some distance carrying enough ordanance to make a difference at point of impact it is not.
A pickup full of diesel and fertiliser would pose much more of a risk to the Govt of NZ and such a device is legal here, as long as intent to do harm is absent.
Tech point: How autonomous is this thing? What's the guidance system? Where did this guy get his maps and images? Or, did he?
Political point: On his web site he says he won't try to understand how politicians think. If he can't be bothered to understand why politicians want to eliminate independent sources of military weapons, he needs tocheck his grip on reality.
He sounds like one more presumptious and arrogant loon who thinks his moral dilletantism is reason to put others at risk. Good for NZ.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Star Wars only protects against ICBMs. Anybody that has the capacity to lauch ICBMs won't, because it would be obvious where they come from, and they fear retaliation. The real threat is from low-flying vehicles, not ICBMs. Drones, cruise missles, RC planes, even Cessna 180s could be used to deliver a payload -- and the "missile defense sheild" wouldn't help at all. We don't need to protect ourselves from weapon systems flying 10 miles up -- we need to protect ourselves from weapon systems flying 10 feet over the waves.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Not really...
Military cruise missile: a precision weapon to get a large explosive (500#, I think), onto a small target so as to maximize target damage and minimize collateral damage.
Terrorist cruise missile: a crude weapon to get an indeterminate payload (chemical, biological, radiological) to a target with minimal accuracy required. There is no distinction between target damage and collateral damage; in effect, the collateral IS the target.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I have no evidence to disbelieve all that you say, but I do have a couple questions about the choice of some of your phrasing...
Decline a grant of $36K in taxpayer's money that was offered to assist with my jet-engine development work -- I figured that those waiting for medical treatment or expecting a decent education could use the money more than me.
This jumped out at me right away as an appeal to pity/spin attempt/I don't know what. I question your true motivation for not accepting the money. 36k devided amongst the many school children in your nation surely would not go very far per student. A few pencils each maybe? Perhaps a computer lab for one school? It would seem to me that the real reason you would refuse government money is to prevent them from having any control of your project. Now I'm not saying anything is wrong with that, having complete control over one's own project is certainly desirable to any inventor/scientist/creator but if you seeked to hide this point, I have to wonder why, and to question your motivation in general because of it. Take it with a grain of salt if I'm way off, but do consider this is how it appears to the skeptical reader.
I also don't see how it is embarrassing to any government if an individual builds a missile. If you are invoking the terrorist implications, I would not fear this new device any more than a moving truck. Trucks have been shown to be quite effective when filled with the correct materials and parked in a suitable position for destruction. What, exactly, is embarrassing? No, I suspect there is other motivation for them going after your project. I would be willing to listen to any other theories you or anyone else has. The fact that you were doing it with permission? I don't understand.
And finally, as far as not knowing where the missile is, is that really the most responsible way to handle the situation? Wouldn't it be better to destroy the device? I have to assume plans still exist and a new missile could be easily constructed when conditions change for you, though the article indicates that is not your goal. But then if that is not your goal, why do you need this one any further? Your stated point seems proven. Not knowing where it is also does not instill in me the notion that you are doing whats right for "everyone". Perhaps this is just another bad PR move on your part, but this doesn't really add up to me the way it seems to for you. This is a potential weapon we are talking about, not a stash of cocaine.
At any rate, I appreciate your comments and if you choose to respond I hope you can see past what looks like personal attacks but is really just a skeptical view of your post and shed further light on the situation.
Instead of calling it a "cruise missle", why not call it an "automated in-flight mail carrier" or "hobby hover-craft". Then the military would not get their panties in bundle over it. Typical of us nerds to open our big mouths without realizing how the rest of the world will interpret it.
Table-ized A.I.