Slashdot Mirror
Preparing Countermeasures For Terror Attacks Using Drones (remotecontrolproject.org)
An anonymous reader writes: You can add terrorist-controlled drones to the list of dangers we need to be prepared for, says the Oxford Research Group. Its new report contains information about over 200 current and upcoming unmanned aerial, ground and marine systems, and evaluates their capabilities for delivering payloads (e.g. explosive devices), imaging capabilities (e.g. for reconnaissance purposes), and their general capabilities. Even though the report notes that commercial drones have a limited flight time, range of movement, and payload capacity, and that their operators still have to be relatively close to a potential target, the researchers are particularly worried about the possibility of drones being used as remotely controlled explosive devices. They say, "The technology of remote-control warfare is impossible to control; the ultimate defence is to address the root drivers of the threat in the first place."
Stop destabilising foreign nations and victimising populations and there won't be any terrorism (except the false flag variety, which is almost all of it anyway....so stop doing that too....)
The report notes that drones work for shit in rainy and windy weather. In other words, our best defense is to amp up the global warming until hurricanes are near us at all times.
TIme for some enterprising quadcopter company to get a multimillion dollar contract to design and build "drone interceptors".
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
For those who are trying to hand wave the issue with a broader "well, we shouldn't do things that make people angry *tsk* *tsk*", while addressing the root drivers will help mitigate the numbers of potential incidents, in a world where people have differing opinions, you'll always have a few folks who disagree strongly enough that they may just try to do something like deliver a dangerous payload via unmanned platform. Very least, you're going to have criminal elements that are going to try and exploit this technology for recon or more direct support in committing crimes, maybe even violent support. Therefore, you're going to need this technology to some degree whether through jamming or even outright shooting it out of the sky.
Shotguns are still standard issue for most police patrol cars, right? Just fill em up with birdshot instead of buckshot and problem solved. It would be like skeet shooting, but instead of shooting at a clay pigeon it would be like shooting one of those explosive targets that had been catapulted into the sky.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
you know: a sports arena, school, etc.
Im sure for anyone who bought a "drone" 2 weeks ago at christmas, this article is neat. However fearmongering aside Terorrism in 2015 killed only 34 people in the United States, the country with the most drones. heck, in 2014 auto accidents alone killed 34,000 people here...and by comparison terorrism is almost a non-issue when pitted against heart disease, which kills 610,000 per year. Unlike terrorism, which is costly to defend against, most of the cases of heart disease in the united states that claim a life could have been prevented by simple diet and exercise. Hell, in 2013 there were 33,000 firearm related deaths in the US, almost 1000 times the number of terrorism related deaths.
but, you know...terorrism...gotta stop those terrorists.
Good people go to bed earlier.
There is also that small question of what happens when a five, ten or even twenty pound object hovering from even a few dozen feet comes crashing down into a crowded street. Probably not an ideal solution, liabilities and whatnot.
Just make it legal to jam drones. Problem solved.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
shotgun, dumbass. The NRA is composed of people who understand that gun control is all about keeping the muzzle pointed in a safe direction. We don't point rifles up; we use shotguns for flying things.
Reporter: "Mister Secretary, what about the possibility of war in the Eighth Dimension?"
Defense Secretary: "What?"
As loosely as the term "terrorist" is thrown around these days, they had better look out for my drone mounted nerf guns
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
Measures -> Counter Measures -> Repeat
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
Right. Let's get rid of the terrorists and replace it with a psychopathic machine.
How do you hit a drone with a shotgun without pointing the muzzle up? Throw it?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
If you ask me, I'd say the root threat here is the Oxford Research Group. They're the ones yelling "Phear Dronze"!
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Do terrorists really think about using mini copters for attacks? Have they done so already? I mean, the notion of sending a suicide martyr to heaven is much more compelling and romantic than plopping bombs on a flying robot.
The concentrated stupid of your posting is the only danger here. From the document you link:
Orally, potassium chloride is toxic in excess; the LD50 is around 2.5 g/kg (meaning that a lethal dose for 50% of people weighing 75 kg (165 lb) is about 190 g (6.7 ounces)). The oral toxicity of sodium chloride (table salt) is about the same, 3.75 g/kg. Thus potassium chloride is harmless for alimentation (and even good for health, see previous paragraph). But intravenously, without the step of digestive absorption, this is reduced to just over 30 mg/kg.
That still means you have to pump a 75kg person (not large) full of 2.25g (almost all 10ccs in solution) to get a 50% death rate and that is without medical attention and you have to hit a vein (because that is what "intravenously" means). Not a credible threat. I also would also very much expect the target to indeed start screaming and panic if stuck with a large needle without warning. The countermeasure is simple though: Just rip out the needle immediately.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
And then they are out of a job and purpose in life. Made obsolete by technology. I feel sad for them.
Yes, that is about the level of respect that idea deserves. Sure, somebody will do it eventually, but the danger here is "car", not "self driving" and society has decided to accept it a long, long time ago.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
as result of car accident, industrial accident, fire, disease, crime, earthquake, meteor, and a whole number of unexpected causes which terrorism is not on that list.
mfwright@batnet.com
The point you missed is that shotguns are not rifles. Shotguns are generally smoothbores.
Shotguns are aimed up because that is what is used for hunting birds. You don't generally hunt a flying bird with a rifle. You want shot dispersal to bracket them for much the same reason you wanted to shoot at airplanes with proximity fused ammo or a veritable hail of bullets: it's hard to hit a flying, moving object with a single slug.
You should always point any weapon downrange and/or toward the ground when it is not in use, but there's no reason whatsoever to point an actual rifle up at the sky unless you're trying to take a lucky shot at an airplane.
It is far trickier than the current anti-drone technology implies. Consider the flight path of a drone attacking a public speaker. All hovering and manoeuvring is done at a distance to get the drone in the best position for a final run. A path as close to people as possible and just out of reach, on a direct vector as possible. That final run will be done a maximum forward speed, giving seconds as reaction time. The laser will end up being aimed at spectators heads as well as the drone, so now you have, " we had to permanently blind spectators including children but that's okay because they are nobodies and we had to protect the extra special person, also the four peoples heads we blew off when we exploded the drone doesn't count for shit either". That doesn't even take into account destructive lasers being used in metropolitan areas with lots and lots of very reflective windows.
So something more along the lines of say a chameleon, where a sticky bundle of fibres on the end of a strong line, is fired at the drone and it is reeled in. The unit mounted on fairly high poles around the zone to be temporarily or permanently protected. That way the drone is caught and should it contain explosives it will detonate at a safer range to the public. A compressed air shotgun with rapidly degrading pellets would logically be required for more intensely protected zones. That final attack run is really quick and does not leave much time.
People doing stupid things near airports or other places is much easier to deal with with the drones moving more slowly and spending considerable time in the location as well as the locations usually having very deep safety zones, this allows capture drones or crash drones with sharp stainless steel blades to be used.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
It is a noble idea to address the root causes of terrorism. But can it be done? In the case of the Arab nations, there is a constant cultural pressure caused by being the crossing point of European, Asian and African cultures. Then we have the over- population vs. lack of resources conflict. And on top of that, we see educational levels of a population that are dismal. All of these factors take long periods of time to deal with if they can be dealt with at all. Long term solutions mean nothing when some group goes off of their nut and launches a drone with some sort of weapon attached. Sadly I think, that the only method of controlling such evil is a delivery of a far greater and punitive evil. Usually, if people fear that consequences of an action will surely result in a great likelihood that they will suffer, their behavior will be more moderate.
Seriously, more than a decade ago: http://www.wired.com/2004/04/i...
This wasn't very hard to figure out that when you look at how easy it is to make weapons. The technicalities of terrorism are easy. You can learn most everything you need at the library and always could. You can build bombs, and you can do it without anyone knowing. Its technical work but its nothing compared to some people's hobbies.
The real question is, why doesn't something so easy happen every day? The problem isn't what is easy, the problem is why would anyone do it. The real enemy is the perception that there is a goal that it can accomplish, and you can't fight that away.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
You know, back before 9/11, when websites were "cool". I remember the gaffaws we had looking at the FBIs infamous "10 most wanted" list. Remember that? Seems like a lifetime ago doesn't it? A whole 15-20 years.
They couldn't even come up with a top 10 list that was the least bit scary. The only "terrorist" on there set off a bomb...at night... when nobody was around. The rest were mostly various drug dealers, including some dude with really wild hair who was (big shock) the one acid dealer.
So basically, the threat was a joke then, and well... I don't see many bombs going off. I see a large increase claims of plots, but they can't be real because, there arn't enough real ones that ever happened as to justify the ones they catch now.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"