Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

64 Drone Bases Located On American Soil

Posted by samzenpus on from the protect-and-serve dept.

MikeatWired writes "We like to think of the drone war as something far away, fought in the deserts of Yemen or the mountains of Afghanistan. But we now know it's closer than we thought, writes Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai at Danger Room. There are 64 drone bases on American soil. That includes 12 locations housing Predator and Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles, which can be armed. Public Intelligence, a non-profit that advocates for free access to information, released a map of military UAV activities in the United States on Tuesday. Assembled from military sources — especially this little-known June 2011 Air Force presentation (.pdf) — it is arguably the most comprehensive map so far of the spread of the Pentagon's unmanned fleet. What exact missions are performed at those locations, however, is not clear. Some bases might be used as remote cockpits to control the robotic aircraft overseas, some for drone pilot training. Others may also serve as imagery analysis depots."

55 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. American Weapons Found in United States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    News at 11.

    1. Re:American Weapons Found in United States by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Drones, Keeping America Safe.... NOT!

    2. Re:American Weapons Found in United States by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      Next we'll hear that there are nuclear weapons in North Dakota, like that's some kind of privileged informat...

      +++ NO CARRIER

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  2. Woah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wait, you mean the American military has bases on American soil?! Well stop the fucking presses!

    1. Re:Woah! by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Funny

      The drones are staying in people's houses?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Woah! by DrgnDancer · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Third Amendment prohibits quartering soldiers in private homes during peacetime. WTF are you on about? This is military equipment being stored on military bases, and being used for training and readiness operations like every other piece of military hardware on every other military base spread all throughout the United States. There are *thousands* of bases in the US for all five branches of the military (if you count the Coast Guard and separate out the Marines) in the US. I've personally served on half a dozen of them. These bases have existed from the founding of the country. Where else are you going to quarter soldiers other than bases, since we've obviously (and correctly) prevented them from being quartered in private homes?

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    3. Re:Woah! by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 3, Funny

      No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

      So, one has to assume that a drone is being quartered in your home without your consent, AC? Want a tip on how to defeat it? Watch the Terminator movies. They are probably the most informative, and action-filled set of documentary movies (I assume documentary, time-travel and all) that you will ever see.

    4. Re:Woah! by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah! Totally right! We need to end that freaking military occupation of land which rightfully belongs to the Native Americans!

    5. Re:Woah! by sycodon · · Score: 2

      I'm no Obama fan, but it's just the Twilight Zone here at Slashdot today.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    6. Re:Woah! by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, that's the wrong amendment. Calling someone a dumbass and then citing the wrong amendment is entertaining, though.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:Woah! by fredrated · · Score: 2

      You wouldn't know a socialist if they kicked you in the ass with a steel-toed boot, fool.

    8. Re:Woah! by countach74 · · Score: 2

      Except that the US didn't have a standing army at the "founding of the country."

    9. Re:Woah! by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Strictly speaking, the Continental Army was ordered to disband in 1783 by Congress and never was actually a US force under the Constitution.

      That said, the example you are probably looking for is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_American_Regiment

      The First American Regiment, later called the the 1st Infantry Regiment, now called the 3rd Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard), was founded in 1784 and obviously lasted through the Confederation and then the United States under the Constitution.

      Still it must be pointed out that even though we always had at least some standing Federal force, it is historical that there was great distrust of standing armies at the time of the founding of the US, and that same distrust has had an effect on all sorts of decisions, from heavy use of the National Guard, to the fact that we refused to use naval ranks like Admiral or army ranks above Major General. (Even today, Major General is the highest permanent rank in the US Army, three and four star ranks are only granted while in positions requiring them. Unless you retire in such a position, you revert to your two star rank for retirement purposes.)

    10. Re:Woah! by SixGunMojo · · Score: 2

      ppffffffft! Everyone knows it is fascists who wear steel toed boots.

    11. Re:Woah! by countach74 · · Score: 2

      It was *not* a standing army. It was essential in reserve. The Constitution explicitly limits the power of the government to maintain a standing army--and it appears that they tried to follow that all the way up until the late 19th century/early 20th century. Now we are at a constant "state of war." I guess that's one way around the limits imposed by the Constitution.

      Notice how I never said the US didn't have an army at the founding of the country.

    12. Re:Woah! by chrb · · Score: 3, Informative

      That said, the example you are probably looking for is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_American_Regiment

      U.S. Congress 1784: "standing armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican government, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism."

      U.S. Congress 2012: authorizes indefinite military detention, authorizes war with Iran (a nation that poses no threat to the U.S. and hasn't attacked another in over 200 years), and legalizes domestic use of military propaganda.

      How times change.

    13. Re:Woah! by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Still it must be pointed out that even though we always had at least some standing Federal force, it is historical that there was great distrust of standing armies at the time of the founding of the US

      Arguing about the intent of the Founding Fathers is a bullshit argument. Maybe it was the intent of the Founding Fathers not to have a large standing army. So what? It was also the intent of the Founding Fathers that women not be allowed to vote, that black people could be bought and sold as property and counted as 3/5 of a human being, and Indians should be evicted from their lands.

      There are certain core principles that are timeless- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, government with the consent of the governed, freedom of speech and religion. But precisely how we promote those things has to change with the times and the technology. We can't all run around in tricorns with muskets, trading negroes and telling our wives to stay home, just because that's how the Founding Fathers would have done it.

    14. Re:Woah! by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2

      It was not a "large" standing army, but it was a small full time force, intended to be the backbone of a larger Army as needed; and it was "standing". The idea was to avoid a large standing force to prevent it from being used tyrannically, but keep a small standing force so someone knew WTF they were doing if we needed to fight. Otherwise you get a bunch of amateurs with guns trying to beat off the British. It worked once, but not very well and mostly only after we'd had years to actually train the Continental Army into something worth the name.

      The Size of the standing Army grew for a number of reasons, most of which seemed good at the time, and some of which are still pretty good. Part of it was certainly US imperial ambitions, but lots of other things had even greater impact. The embarrassingly long times it took for us to train effective forces after joining either World War was one. The fact that being a soldier is a much more technical task than it was in the colonial period is another. It's simply no longer possible to have a small back bone of officers and NCOs that are well trained and expect them to turn recruits into soldiers in anything like a reasonable period. Even in the well established bosom of a professional organization it takes most of a year to get a recruit fully trained for many jobs. Two years before they're competent. More technical jobs can require two years just for training. Even simple "infantry" jobs require a solider to be familiar with tactics, operation of numerous vehicles and weapon systems, and ideally air drop procedures from both high and low altitudes (planes and helicopters).

      Even National Guard troops that relieve full training and periodic practice take a couple months of retraining to get fully up to standard before deployment. We're a bit beyond the days of "Hay foot, straw foot" being enough to get going.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    15. Re:Woah! by lightknight · · Score: 2

      So, what you're saying is that we need another George Washington and his band of merry men.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    16. Re:Woah! by yurtinus · · Score: 2

      The "wholesale fetishism" bit makes this all a matter of personal opinion, but the large standing army and enduring military-industrial complex followed WWII as a result of the Cold War. Each prior war saw a buildup during the war and a rapid dropoff in military spending immediately following. WWII broke this trend and we have yet to return to comparable military spending as in the interwar period.

      --
      +1 Disagree
  3. An analysis could be interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If someone overlaid a map of UFO sightings over the top of this...

    1. Re:An analysis could be interesting by chill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Make all the jokes you want, but a drone was confused as a UFO just yesterday in D.C. I expect the number of UFO "sightings" to skyrocket.

      http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/18785637/beltway-ufo-said-to-be-military-drone-aircraft?clienttype=printable

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:An analysis could be interesting by Entropius · · Score: 2

      This is DC. Next to Baltimore it has the highest density of morons and crazies of anywhere I've seen.

    3. Re:An analysis could be interesting by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Oh My Fucking God

      Just when you think it's safe to go back in the water.....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  4. 5 Point Streak by protonics · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thankfully, the weapons are inaccessible until someone obtains at least a 5 point streak.

  5. You're kidding!?! by DrgnDancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... Really?

    There are also more US Army, Air Force, and Navy bases in the US than in the rest of the world combined. Many of them have tanks, warplanes, aircraft carriers, howitzers, and many other weapons that can be loaded and armed with live ammunition and dangerous explosives. I mean, who knew right? Oh wait... Everybody knew. Of course we have drone bases in the US. They have to train people, provide headquarters and on going operational training for units not deployed, stored undeployed hardware... this is the stupidest thing I've ever read.

    What did these guys think? They send untested multimillion dollar drones over to Yemen where they hand them to an untrained unit and expect them to just figure out how they work in the field? It's just like any other military operation: for every deployed unit there are probably five waiting in reserve, getting readiness training, refitting, etc. Most of that happens in the US.

    --
    I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    1. Re:You're kidding!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They send untested multimillion dollar drones over to Yemen where they hand them to an untrained unit and expect them to just figure out how they work in the field?

      Well, considering the targets dont shoot back they might just as well do the training in the field.

    2. Re:You're kidding!?! by DrgnDancer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't disagree. Your questions are valid, and had the article been written in a reasonable fashion, asking those questions and wondering how we might find out the answers it would have been a much more useful piece. As it is the piece is a written in tones intended to make the reader panicked over the hardly surprising fact that the US military is storing and using US military hardware inside the US. As if anyone should be even slightly surprised over this fact. Of course we're doing this, the bulk of all US military personnel and equipment are in the US; and except for a few periods of heavy action (the World Wars, mainly), the bulk of US military personnel and hardware are *always* located in the US. Home territory is simply the most convenient place to do most of what nondeployed need to do.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    3. Re:You're kidding!?! by sohmc · · Score: 2

      There is a difference between military operations, where the mission is directly against a citizen of the state and within the confines of its borders, and military training. I believe the parent author is referring to the latter.

      Interestingly, the Posse Comitatus Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act) only covers the Army and Air Force. So the Marine UAV bases could still be used against state citizens.

      --
      We don't live in Shouldland.
    4. Re:You're kidding!?! by Sparticus789 · · Score: 5, Informative

      1. Keep in mind that the UAV operators are lower ranking people, usually E-2 to E-5, that really just want to go home and drink or play WoW. We usually pick some random car, read the license plate, then test the auto-follow feature for a few minutes, then test it again. It is really anti-climactic. Training flights are the worst, 16 hours of nothing happening gets old really quick.

      2. The information is basically stored until the drives are full. Nobody really pays attention to it until the maintainers (former me) come along and format the drive. Yes, I will admit that UAV's have caught the occasional nude sunbather in the backyard and such. Since I was in Georgia, it was not nearly as common as some other areas. So I cannot speak to the efficacy of peeping-tom drones in the San Diego area.

      3. I'm sure the CIA, FBI, or local police could get the information, but first they would have to know the drone was even up there. Flight schedules for military aircraft are considered secret and are not published on a bulletin board or anything. UAV flight schedules are kept decently secure, because of their sensitive equipment. If they call the military asking if there were any drones in the air, they are really grasping at straws. Second, with a camera range of 30+ miles, there's a lot of area to cover. Third, during my 3 years at one of these "drone" bases, we never heard anything from any law enforcement or spy agency.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    5. Re:You're kidding!?! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      Actually, that only effects certain branches of the military. Read the Posse Comitatus Act. It directly affects the Army and Air Force, but doesn't restrict Navy (Marines), Coast Guard (who have a law enforcement directive to begin with) or National Guard. The Navy is self-regulated by a DOD directive, which could be retracted at any time.

      Oh, and it doesn't deny the ability to use federal troops for law enforcement, it only requires Congressional approval; which if you look at how the authorization of force in Iraq went, doesn't mean much.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    6. Re:You're kidding!?! by ebuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They send untested multimillion dollar drones over to Yemen where they hand them to an untrained unit and expect them to just figure out how they work in the field?

      Well, considering the targets dont shoot back they might just as well do the training in the field.

      The idea that our military attacks peaceful targets that don't even bother to defend themselves is beyond ridiculous. You should be ashamed for insuinuating such. You are demeaning the job of the military, and belittling the risk they are taking on your behalf.

      Whether you desire the military to be active in a particular location or not, give them the respect due to a person who is willing to follow out the wishes of our government, despite their personal feelings, in the hope that we do make the world a better place.

    7. Re:You're kidding!?! by Sparticus789 · · Score: 2

      First, you obviously know nothing about the military. A unit doesn't keep secrets amongst itself. If it happened, everyone would have known about it.

      Second, only the maintainers would have access. The world is not like "Hackers," where a few cd and ls commands will magically crack a password. What's DOD standard now, 15 characters, 2 upper case, 2 lower case, 2 numbers, 2 symbols? Let's also throw in the 5 or so layers of physical security, multiple alarms, internal surveillance footage, server logs, independent server logs, network analyzers. On top of that, most Army systems are old SPARC-20 computers with Solaris 5, a.k.a. slow as shit.

      So yeah, put on your tin foil hat and keep thinking they are watching you. It's a waste of your time.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
  6. A bit sensationalist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "But we now know it's closer than we thought" It has been common knowledge that drones are stationed on and piloted from US soil. Just wait until the author finds out how many soldiers, tanks, and even nuclear bombs are also located on US soil.

    1. Re:A bit sensationalist? by saider · · Score: 4, Funny

      [kent brockman]
      Just miles from your doorstep, hundreds of men are given weapons and trained to kill. The government calls it the Army, but a more alarmist name would be ... The Killbot Factory.
      [/kent brockman]

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
  7. Exact purposes? by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    Well, now they are targets.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  8. Airplanes and Ships have bases too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We keep fighter jets, ships and even nuclear missiles on American soil (and waters) should we be worried about those too? It's barely newsworthy! I'd actually be surprised if there weren't drone bases here.

  9. Many are for science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know quite well that many of these are for things like weather and hurricane monitoring. They're certainly not all deployed to kill people and watch for terrorists.

  10. Come on, Slashdot ... seriously. by tgd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You don't have to try this hard to jump the shark. The shark was jumped a decade ago.

    These stories are just making a mockery of the mockery that Slashdot has become.

    Just to keep the ball rollin', there's probably GPL violations, Microsoft software and patented things at those bases, too!

  11. An airbase is an airbase. by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And the USAF has many of them in the USA. Why do they suddenly become especially evil because some of the aircraft are unmanned?

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:An airbase is an airbase. by virg_mattes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's the nature of the device in question. There are many reasons to have an airbase in the continental U.S., like training and defense in the case of attack. Drones, on the other hand, currently serve one and only one purpose, and that's aerial surveillance. Having drones based in the continental U.S. is only useful if the drones are being used over U.S. territory (failing border patrol) and having the U.S. military running surveillance essentially on civilian populations raises the hackles of many people. We've heard the whole "we'll only use it against the bad guys!" line too many times to believe it any more.

      Virg

  12. Mt. Washington, NH a drone base? Really? by c0d3g33k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mount Washington in New Hampshire's White Mountains shows up on the map, which surprised me a bit. It is in a fairly remote area (relative to major population centers) and happens to be one of the major tourist attractions in the area (Don't forget your "This car climbed Mt. Washington" bumper sticker if you make it up and down the Mt. Washington Auto Road). There's not a whole lot there - a cafe and weather station at the peak, hiking trails, forest land and ski resorts nearby. It's located within a State Park. This suggests the disclaiming statements at the end of the summary probably apply to a lot of the 64 "drone bases" referred to by the dramatic headline. As the highest peak in the Northeast (6,288 ft or 1,917 m), it seems like a good spot for communications or sensing equipment. Or, since the weather is quite wild and variable at the summit (held the record for the highest recorded wind gust for 76 years), it could be a good spot to stress-test a drone under severe conditions. Hardly a "Drone Base".

  13. obviously by smash · · Score: 2

    they're for suppressing any american uprising, stupid. like OWS, or whatever comes next.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  14. Re:What about latency? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

    Or a hybrid. Onboard computer does the rapid-response compensation for changing atmospheric conditions, while the operator tells it where to and where to point the cameras. Should be able to do everything at 750ms you'd want from a drone - they aren't used for dogfighting.

  15. Incorrect info by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At least one marker is totally incorrect. Syracuse NY, Hancock Field, 174th Fighter Wing (ANG) shows its status as "Future". As of March 2010, they sent the last of their F-16's out and fully transitioned to MQ-9 Reapers.

    Wonder what else here is incorrect.

  16. Why All the Hysteria About Drones? by MikeyC01 · · Score: 2

    How are unmanned flying vehicles any different than manned helicopters and airplanes used by various agencies during the course of duty? Manned aircraft are used daily for any number of law enforcement (surveillance, speed traps, border protection, etc), fire protection, crop dusting, and even news and traffic gathering?

    Why is not having a pilot in the actual aircraft a reason to pull out the tinfoil and white noise makers?

    "But they can arm them" isn't a valid excuse because there's no reason they can't arm a piloted aircraft.

  17. Begun, the drone wars have by wintercolby · · Score: 4, Funny

    Our republic has lost almost all pretense of democracy, and now there's a massive build up of drones?

    What's next, buying an army of clones from North Korea?

    And people questioned just how visionary George Lucas is.

    --
    Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
  18. Re:Mt. Washington, NH a drone base? Really? by darkstar949 · · Score: 2

    It's also a good location to do special ops training which you can tease out from the presentation that was listed. Furthermore, the presentation also indicates that RQ-11 Raven and Wasp III drones are what are operated. These are small "backpack" drones that are used for scouting which would make sense if they are being used for special ops training exercises.

  19. Re:Not news by azalin · · Score: 2

    And not just the US. I guess anybody ever participating in a public discussion of a decent size knew that for a few thousand years.

  20. And UFO means???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If someone overlaid a map of UFO sightings over the top of this...

    Anyone who hasn't seen a drone in flight - most people in the continental US for example - wouldn't be able to identify it, I mean consider a Predator drone. Its a weird-looking fucker at the best of times, now imagine seeing it lit up by a setting sun, flitting through low cloud... The Martians are coming, the Martians are coming!!!!!!! Definitely an "Unidentified Flying Object".

    And for gods same, don't try to take a photo of it with a long lens, while wearing arab dress.

    KABOOIEEEE!!!!!!

    Interesting times, I tell ya.....

  21. Activities != Bases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    As stated in the presentation, these are "activities" and not necessarily permanent locations. Though many probably are permanent, it's a bad assumption to think they are not just sites for demos, storage, or training. Don't forget UAVs can be as small as the remote control toy airplanes you can buy for your kids at the store. Also, this "little known" presentation was marked for public distribution and was given at an AFCEA function which is hardly some conspiratorial organization.

  22. Re:"We" by Darkness404 · · Score: 2

    "We" is the most destructive 2 letter word in the English language.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  23. Re:Woah! Yep Slashdot == Fox news. by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Informative

    One of the sites on the map is not far from where I live. The thing is that there is no "military" base in Okeechobee Florida so I did a little research...
    http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/design-architecture/are-non-military-drones-flying-into-regulatory-quagmire/4759

    ewww I am terrified. The Army corp of engineers are using small hand launched "drones" to monitor lake Okeechobee which is frankly a way cool use of tech folks. Yea this guy in a polo shirt throwing a model airplane from a bass boat terrifies me to no ends...
    The other bases in Florida are all training sites. At at least one of them they also have F22s! ewww.
    Really people when did Slashdot become so freaking political? They are not good at it and frankly I would rather see more stories about people buiding mechs in the backyards than fear mongering crap like this.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  24. Re:Woah! Yep Slashdot == Fox news. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    Personally, I'm looking forward to our ubiquitous drone overlords.

    I can see this as a total win -

    1. Target practice - better than trap or skeet. I'll bet .22 bird shot would take down the little ones. For the bigger guys, it's always goose season around here....
    2. Spare parts - the local Radio Shack doesn't carry UAV stuff yet. I'd love to pick up a couple of those little guys when the batteries run down or they hit a tree.
    3. Cat practice for the ones in your backyard. Better than having the stupid animals chew up the bird population.

    And you folks think the Federal Government doesn't want to help the average guy.....

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  25. The 3/5ths thing was an *anti*-slavery clause by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Interesting

    that black people could be bought and sold as property and counted as 3/5 of a human being

    Just for the sake of accuracy -- Slaves were whole "persons" according to the Constitution, but it was only 3/5ths of their number that counted for determining a state's representation in the House.

    The slave states wanted the full number of their slaves to count, because it would increase their influence in the federal government. It was non-slave states and abolitionists who argued against this, and reducing it to 3/5ths was the compromise.

    So you see, it's not counting slaves as less than a full human being (which wasn't what they were doing) that is the problem with the 3/5ths clause. It's that people who were slaves and thus not represented by their government were being counted towards representation at all. It's not that it's less than 1, it's that it's greater than 0!

    Just wanted to put that into perspective. It's kinda messed up that we had to make compromises like that just to form our nation. But you know, the Founder's reasoning about freedom and liberty were quite good. The only problem was that they didn't extend the concepts to everyone, which is a problem easily fixed -- logically, anyway.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are