Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DARPA's ICARUS Program To Develop Self-Destructing Air Delivery Vehicles (darpa.mil)

Posted by timothy on from the think-of-the-multiplier-effect dept.

Zothecula contributes this excerpt from Gizmag that illustrates the latest chapter in the long history of denying equipment of military technology to the makers' adversaries: Two years ago, DARPA started developing self-destructing electronics as a way to prevent advanced military gear falling into the wrong hands. Now the agency is expanding on the idea with its Inbound, Controlled, Air-Releasable, Unrecoverable Systems (ICARUS) program, which is tasked with developing small, unmanned, single-use, unpowered air vehicles that can can be dropped from an aircraft to deliver supplies to isolated locations in the event of disasters, then evaporate into thin air once their job is done.

70 comments

  1. Well the name is appropriate. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

    Always amused by the military's use of the world "delivery" though.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:Well the name is appropriate. by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      As amusing as nitehawk214's use of the word "world".

    2. Re:Well the name is appropriate. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 0

      Uhh, no I mean that they are able to deliver bombs all over the world... yeah, that's it.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    3. Re: Well the name is appropriate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't it be Hot Air Delivery?

    4. Re: Well the name is appropriate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raphael Cruz has nothing to do with this story.

    5. Re:Well the name is appropriate. by Shoten · · Score: 1

      Here's what this name reminds me of:

      Hill: What does S.H.I.E.L.D. stand for Agent Ward?
      Ward: Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division.
      Hill: And what does that mean to you?
      Ward: That someone really wanted our initials to spell SHIELD.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  2. So, DARPA is designing actual by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

    Vaporware?

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    1. Re:So, DARPA is designing actual by Crowd+Computing · · Score: 2
      Just delete the "o":

      The program evolved from the success of DARPA's VAnishing Programmable Resources (VAPR) program, which is developing a new class of self-destructing electronics designed to destroy themselves on command to prevent them from being captured by enemy forces.

    2. Re:So, DARPA is designing actual by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      Somehow, I cannot get Inspector Gadget from my mind. In a first test run, don't forget to send the project leader a note reading "this message will self-destruct".

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    3. Re: So, DARPA is designing actual by ememisya · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? That is super cool. Make a phone call, "Hey, can I get a bottle of Pepsi in the middle of the Sahara?" 5 minutes later it's delivered and the messenger goes up in smoke like a genie. I mean next best thing would be teleportation but yea, or a catapult and your Pepsi parachutes down.

    4. Re: So, DARPA is designing actual by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      More accurately they can drop other manufacturing countries small arms and munitions to regime change countries, so that the claim the manufacturing country was interfering in the regime change country, so that the country actually supplying can 'er' help to secure the recipient country from the source of manufacture country but not the actual supply country with a military base or two. So why is the US already supply confiscated Russian manufactured and munitions arms to countries instead of properly destroying them.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re: So, DARPA is designing actual by ememisya · · Score: 1

      Because that wouldn't be economically feasable? Somebody's got to be the big guy, it's an ugly position, but it's a necessary evil nonetheless. Not to mention inevitable. Pretty sad, but such is the human condition. You can't make the world better today unfortunately, only different. Replicators, space travel, and teleportation should keep us busy until the next millenium.

  3. you just know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That the guy who came up with that acronym was fist-bumping and high-fiving his way around the office after he came up with that little gem.

  4. Don't we already have this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called a bomb, we've had them since WW I or earlier.

    1. Re:Don't we already have this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumb bombs don't have electronics. I think the proper term you are looking for is Patriot missile. And yes, they work well.

  5. Evaporates into thin air? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 0

    I think you meant "explodes into tiny fragments and toxic compounds dust".

  6. Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, it's a parachute made of corn husks? Where's my billions?

  7. Simple by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    ... then evaporate into thin air once their job is done.

    Just have the "delivery vehicle" fly really close to the Sun.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Simple by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Congrats on repeating the reference from the second word in the damn title. Or do you think the name is a coincidence?

    2. Re:Simple by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Congrats on repeating the reference from the second word in the damn title. Or do you think the name is a coincidence?

      It's possible that not everyone will recognize the DARPA usage as a tortured/forced acronym (Inbound, Controlled, Air-Releasable, Unrecoverable Systems) for the person of Greek mythology. Which is stupid anyway as the DARPA version won't actually fly anywhere near the Sun. [ Stupid government/military and their stupid desire for stupid acronyms. How much time/money is wasted coming up with these things? ]

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:Simple by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      Given it gets colder as you go higher and wings don't work so well as the atmosphere thins I don't think it's the DARPA version with the most stupid :)

      And those acronyms are important, it's harder to win popular support when things are called "We want to drop thousands of small bombs over populated areas with guidance mechanisms so they hit the targets we want, but since with that many it's certain some of them won't explode we also want the guidance system to self destruct so our enemies can't reverse engineer them when they find a bomb that didn't explode as designed and also didn't explode when picked up by a child years after the conflict is over".

  8. I've got the contract in the bag by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Just have a look at my sweet prototypes for an unmanned unpowered air vehicle that will disintegrate after use.

    It can even carry secret messages with addition of my optional $500 secure message encoding substrate.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  9. I have a better name for this. by GuB-42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's call the powered one "missiles" and the unpowered ones "bombs".

    1. Re:I have a better name for this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whyyy do my mod points always run out when I need them most

    2. Re:I have a better name for this. by Rei · · Score: 1

      They talk about using them for delivery of harmless supplies, but I agree, as weapons delivery systems they seem to make more sense. They describe a balloon carrying up large numbers of small, largely transparent aerial vehicles that then drift to target locations up to 150km away automatically with a 1,4kg payload, then vaporize via sublimation and/or fracturing electronics to tiny bits from internal stresses. Why exactly couldn't these be carrying small shaped charges? And if they have a processor controlling the descent, then they could probably run at least simple image recognition algorithms, or even just IR seeking, once they get to their destination.

      A 1,4kg shaped charge is no laughing matter - a mere 440g charge is said to be able to penetrate 35cm of armour. Even if the charge can't penetrate, say, tank primary armour, a precise delivery system could target things like optics systems, weapons systems, tracks, etc. Such a charge could completely take out unarmoured vehicles and would be particularly destructive to aircraft on the ground. Ammunition, fuel supplies, power substations, etc, etc... there's a lot of things a small explosive payload could take out. A balloon hauling dozens or even hundreds of them at once? You're basically talking "cluster cruise missiles". Carried on small transparent wings with almost no radar signature except for that of your munition.

      I'm sure that these possibilities haven't passed over DARPA officials.

      --
      The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
    3. Re:I have a better name for this. by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      The Japanese tried balloon bombs in WWII targeted at the US mainland. Didn't work too well. And isn't the US a signatory on the treaty banning cluster munitions? Cluster munitions have a bad habit of deciding not to explode until years later when some kid is playing soccer next to them or some farmer plows one up.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:I have a better name for this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They deliver freedom.

    5. Re:I have a better name for this. by Rei · · Score: 1

      These aren't "balloon bombs", in that you're launching a balloon and hoping it goes over the right location. They talk about using a balloon to give them altitude so that they can then self-glide down to precise locations without needing an engine.

      The US actively uses cluster munitions and has no plans to phase them out, and is not a signatory to the Convention on Cluster Munitions (nor are any states that could be considered its enemies or rivals, such as Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc). And when your control electronics completely dissolve, it's hard to picture exactly what is supposed to "set them off". Or, conversely if so designed, to not be set off when their control electronics dissolve.

      --
      The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
    6. Re:I have a better name for this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you're also AOK with land mines.

    7. Re:I have a better name for this. by Rei · · Score: 1

      Huh? Where did I state any of my personal views in the above? You're reading too much into things.

      --
      The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
    8. Re:I have a better name for this. by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      I'd be ok with land mines if they automatically evaporated once the war is over too.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    9. Re:I have a better name for this. by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Where the US military wants to keep using land mines is in Korea, and the Korean war is not over.

    10. Re:I have a better name for this. by careysub · · Score: 1

      I'd be ok with land mines if they automatically evaporated once the war is over too.

      Although "evaporation" is not in the cards, it is quite easy to design land mines, and other munitions (like cluster bombs) that become safety inert after a set period of time. The key feature is to use an electrical detonation system with a current drain built in so that the battery goes dead within a fixed period of time. Combine this with an exploding bridgewire or "slapper" detonator, in which all of the ignition energy comes from electricity and not a sensitive primer, and the use of inert high explosives (IHE) like TATB that can be thrown into roaring fire without risk of explosion, and you have a device that becomes perfectly safe after a designed number of weeks or months. If, for good measure, you put a a metal tag on the mine so that it can easily be detected with a metal detector, then mine fields - though safe - could be efficiently cleared (to keep the TATB out of other people's hands perhaps).

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    11. Re:I have a better name for this. by truck_soccer · · Score: 1

      whyyy do my mod points always run out when I need them most

      Probably because you don't understand how to properly use them.

    12. Re:I have a better name for this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the reusable ones "drones," even though we're clearly not at risk of having our top secret stealth drones hijacked over enemy territory.

    13. Re:I have a better name for this. by Garfong · · Score: 1

      Note the balloon is to simplify the challenge. The proposal needs to include discussion on deployment from other air platforms, especially high speed, high altitude aircraft. It also needs to include calculations of the anticipated maximum drop airspeed, and any anticipated modifications which might be required to drop the vehicle at airspeeds exceeding the anticipated maximum drop airspeed.

    14. Re:I have a better name for this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yawn

    15. Re:I have a better name for this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > a mere 440g charge is said to be able to penetrate 35cm of armour. Even if the charge can't penetrate, say, tank primary armour, a precise delivery system could target things like optics systems, weapons systems, tracks, etc.

      Not to mention what it could to an average human skull and/or rib cage.

      > deliver supplies to isolated locations in the event of disasters

      I rather suspect that it's meant to deliver death to isolated persons in the event of being individually targeted for death.

    16. Re:I have a better name for this. by Rei · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's possible to design dual-purpose munitions like they did for the latest version of the javelin - a shaped charge with a casing designed to fragment so that even when not used against a vehicle (the molten copper stream), it's still quite deadly to personnel (the fragmentation).

      I just can't help but picture how effective such a system would be if designed with a good target-finding system. Picture something like that targeted at, say, the Russian airbase in Latakia by some rebels who just "happened" to acquire one. Every jet and helicopter on the tarmac gets simultaneously hit with a shaped charge. Fuel tanks get hit, any exposed ammunition stocks, radar systems, control towers, communications systems, anti-aircraft batteries, vulnerable parts on tanks, unarmored vehicles... you could pretty much trash anything outdoors at the time, and what systems exactly are they supposed to use to stop it? You'll never hit a little plastic glider with a MANPAD or large SAM - and they almost assuredly cost way more than the glider (even if the glider is given a good camera and ample processing power). On the final dive it could probably hit many dozens, potentially well over 100 kmph, so good luck taking it out with small arms fire, if you even know it's coming, given that there's not going to be any noise, the radar signature is tiny, and the wings are transparent plastic. You can't jam something that's entirely self guided. Maybe you could "HERF" them, but you can't HERF an entire base without frying your own electronics as well.

      Just seems like a very hard thing to defend against that could be devastating to anything not housed inside a building that provides sufficient shielding from the molten metal stream (and even such buildings might have weaknesses, with smart enough (perhaps "second generation") control software - aka looking for sufficiently large gaps such as large windows or doors, or gliders programmed to make gaps on high priority targets for later-comers to enter). A glider is never going to "fly down a narrow hallway" or anything of that nature, but say, getting into a hangar should be an achievable task. And anyway, in most situations there'd be no shortage of important outdoor targets.

      --
      The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
  10. This is a whitewash by klingens · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why would anyone with even an ounce of self-estime parrot bullshit like "that can can be dropped from an aircraft to deliver supplies to isolated locations in the event of disasters, then evaporate into thin air once their job is done."

    This is not for disasters. When there is a disaster, and you deliver stuff via one-time use means, you want to keep these aur vehicles cause they are valuable and incredibly useful. For example some parachute can be easily repurposed as a tent, to keep out rain or simply people from freezing. These are valuable materials. Metals are equally useful, etc. There simply is no trash at a disaster site, only ressources

    The only, really ONLY reason for self destructing air vehicles are to infilttrate spies and spec ops into foreign countries to cause violence.

    1. Re:This is a whitewash by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      The only reason for this is in war zones, but they can be used for aerial reconnaissance, and for resupplying the front lines.

      I think maybe mischief may be more effective than violence to slow the other side down, because they are less likely to devote resources to it which sounds like a boon in itself, but it increases the chances of getting caught and used to embarrass the first side.

    2. Re:This is a whitewash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) It's spelled "esteem" in English, Mr Frenchy.
      2) What does self-esteem have to do with anything?

    3. Re:This is a whitewash by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      you want to keep these aur vehicles cause they are valuable and incredibly useful.

      That is not a valid business plan the vehicle must be unrecoverable so that more will be purchased.

  11. Old Idea by sunderland56 · · Score: 2

    They've had this idea for years; the old code name used to be "parachute". These new ones sure are fancy, but does the taxpayer really need to spend that much when a simple parachute would work equally well?

    1. Re:Old Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The old version was based on 100% solar energy and biological material (wax, feathers) but apparently it didn't "deliver".

    2. Re:Old Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Delivering vitally needed supplies after disasters or to soldiers in the field isn't always a matter of slapping a parachute on a crate and pushing it out the back of a cargo plane. If the supplies are delicate, perishable, or need to be landed precisely, some sophisticated hardware and avionics are required to put it on target.

      It's amazing what you can learn by reading. You should try it sometime.

    3. Re:Old Idea by rHBa · · Score: 1
      From TFA:

      The air delivery vehicles to be developed by the program need to meet certain criteria. These include the ability to drop payloads of up to 3 lb (1.4 kg) within 10 m (33 ft) of a target landing spot and cover a lateral distance of over 150 km (93 mi) when released from a stationary balloon at 10,670 m (35,000 ft).

      That would require a glide ratio of nearly 15:1 so a parachute (or even a paraglider) wouldn't quite do the job. I'm imagining it'll be something like a self steering mini hangglider or sailplain.

      Of course being unpowered the aircraft's range will depend on wind direction (it won't get as far flying into a head-wind). The one thing I am curious about is how they are going to control the direction of the craft once launched if it truly is unpowered.

    4. Re:Old Idea by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Same way they control gliders. It may have no driving engine, but it can still have flaps, or flexing wings. Just needs a compass and GPS unit.

    5. Re:Old Idea by Garfong · · Score: 1

      In the actual request for proposals they mention parachutes (it sounds like this is what's currently used). Apparently in many situations of interest the parachute would need to be packed out by the sniper or Special Forces teams being resupplied. The goal is to create a system which doesn't need to be packed out, doesn't give away the position of the people receiving the supplies.

    6. Re:Old Idea by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      in many situations of interest the parachute would need to be packed out

      Yeah, right. Give a grunt the task of hauling out a large bulky parachute over many miles of enemy terrain, and he'll quickly discover the book of matches in his pocket.

    7. Re:Old Idea by Garfong · · Score: 1

      I'm just relaying what the DARPA doc says: the reason for the disappearing requirement is for operational security. Apparently something which "disappears" by burning into a fine ash is also out for similar reasons.

    8. Re:Old Idea by rHBa · · Score: 1

      It still needs power for the GPS and to control the flaps, I guess a small, disposable battery would do for the expected life of the unit but getting a battery and servos to 'disappear'...? ...It'll be a bit trickier than VAPRising some micro electronics and a lot more hazardous too...

    9. Re:Old Idea by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Those types of components are commodity parts anyway. The magic is in the software, and making that disappear is very easy indeed.

  12. Why not use ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... off the shelf drone technology? So even if one of these falls into the hands of an enemy, it isn't anything they couldn't have bought at Best Buy anyway.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  13. Deus Ex by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

    I instantly thought of this Icarus.

    Every day Deus Ex seems less sci-fi and more non-fiction.

  14. Biodegradable ordinance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should also invest in biodegradable ordinance and bombs, so that they stop harming innocent individuals for decades after the end of the military operations in which they were deployed and failed to detonate.

    1. Re:Biodegradable ordinance by careysub · · Score: 1

      They should also invest in biodegradable ordinance and bombs, so that they stop harming innocent individuals for decades after the end of the military operations in which they were deployed and failed to detonate.

      You are absolutely correct. I posted above about how munitions that become safely inert after a set period of time can be made. Lack of interest in doing this is unconscionable.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    2. Re:Biodegradable ordinance by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I don't think the US actually uses autonomous non-self-destructing area-defense munitions any more? They took them out of the NorK DMZ quite a while ago IIRC. There are still, surely, some remaining from old (and still people being harmed by them) but I don't think we're actually using them any more. I am too lazy to Google so I could be wrong.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re:Biodegradable ordinance by thesupraman · · Score: 2

      No, you are right.
      These days you just sell/give them to others to use..
      Usually to destabilise governments you dont agree with.
      Because arming such dissident groups is a good idea, right?

    4. Re:Biodegradable ordinance by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Somehow, I kind of doubt the US government's doing that but I'm open to proof - of course. Do you have any such proof? A quick Google doesn't seem to indicate that as being true in any current (or even recent) reports.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  15. Please don't tell appliance makers by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    about these evaporating electronics...

    They already manage to make things that fail the day after the warranty, I really don't want my coffee machine evaporating as soon as the new model is released...

    1. Re:Please don't tell appliance makers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you must me a communist, socialist, markist, Obama-ite.

    2. Re:Please don't tell appliance makers by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      That was probably the original plan... how can we make these fail the day after the warranty expires? The marketing department can claim a lifetime warranty if they only return the broken hardware we'll replace it. Then make it evaporate after a few months... nothing to return no warranty.

    3. Re:Please don't tell appliance makers by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Years and years ago there was a company, in Maine actually - kind of neat I guess, that designed and created optical disks that were based on organics and would stop working after a set time once exposed to air. The thinking was DVD rental kiosks and things like Netflix. It didn't catch on and, I think, they've since stopped trying to market them and may have gone out of business.

      I sit on the board at my local credit union and we were approached for funding. We declined. They were in the media for a while but that didn't last long either. I've no idea what actually became of them or their idea. I just figured that people would just copy the disks first thing and that the whole idea was borderline retarded. The board has some not-so-very tech-savvy people on it and my background has come in handy at times though we'll often call in a specialist for additional information.

      As an aside, we didn't slow down lending and still haven't. We're raking in money hand over fist. Seriously, I see a trend in small and single proprietorships being the future - as it was in the past. It may well be time to hang out your shingle though I'd worry about the taxation. Oddly, larger businesses get more tax breaks than smaller businesses even though the smaller ones probably do as much for society as a whole but I digress.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    4. Re:Please don't tell appliance makers by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Flexplay did that though they're from Atlanta I think.

      DVD-D was similar - rather than being a reaction with oxygen it used the spinning of the disc to initiate the reaction so the first play of the day set the timer running on it stopping to work rather than it being exposed to air.

      From a rental point of view the no need to return bit makes sense, but people always hate the idea. DIVX doing it via phoning home also didn't work out well. Now of course streaming has pretty much replaced the need.

    5. Re:Please don't tell appliance makers by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Same company - I think we may have now both learned a little something new.

      http://archive.bangordailynews...

      I like learning new things and I'd thought it was organics that they'd used and not spinning. I didn't read the article completely except to scan for the name for I am a lazy git. So I'll just operate under the assumption that you're correct. Although when it was on NPR I seem to recall they'd mentioned it was organics and based on the packaging and air but I could be mistaken. I didn't live in Maine but I'd already bought some of the property that I now own - I'd expected to retire here but I'd expected it to take longer. Then I got involved in some sales talks and, well, the rest is history.

      By the time the company approached the credit union (a few years later) I was retired and on the board at the credit union. They were hoping to last long enough to be acquired, as I recall. (I'm pretty sure that this isn't something I can't disclose. I kind of hope not.) We declined given that they'd been peddling their wares for a while and there didn't seem to be much of an uptake and my opinion was that it was borderline retarded as anyone who wanted could just rip the DVDs to disk before they stopped functioning - they could even make multiple attempts as long as they did so reasonably quickly.

      Anyhow, it's neat to think about the ideas that didn't really catch on. From a quick look, the article might be interesting...

      Screw it... I'm going back to read it. I wasn't doing anything better.

      Heh! I'm *never* right! I am, for once! Usually, it is my memory that is faulty.

      Unopened Flexplay disks stay good in the package for about a year. But once the package seal is broken, a chemical reaction with oxygen begins, giving the owner two days to play the movie as many times as desired.

      Now, I don't remember the NPR bit very well but I think they'd mentioned something about corn or a corn derivative? The article doesn't say and I'm not going to bother looking into it further. I'd absolutely not trust my memory where this is concerned. Hell, I was willing to defer to your recollection - it wouldn't surprise me if they'd had more than one incarnation though and that the method you mentioned had also been tried.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  16. Biodegradable parachute? by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    ..."small, unmanned, single-use, unpowered air vehicles that can can be dropped from an aircraft to deliver supplies to isolated locations in the event of disasters..."

    What's wrong with putting supplies on a wooden pallet and using a parachute to drop them out of a plane?

    1. Re:Biodegradable parachute? by Garfong · · Score: 1

      Per other comments you can't drop parachutes from the edge of SAM range.

  17. I thought we had those, and called them missiles? by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Am confused?

    Self-destructive air delivery vehicles. Sure sounds like a Cruise Missile to me...

  18. The dour truth of the matter is that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the Heart Attack Gun from the 1975 Church Committee was not enough.