# Flying robot attack "unstoppable": experts



## _TheSaint_ (9 May 2006)

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/09/060509055355.jjazoykq.html



> It may sound like science fiction, but the prospect that suicide bombers and hijackers could be made redundant by flying robots is a real one, according to experts.
> 
> The technology for remote-controlled light aircraft is now highly advanced, widely available -- and, experts say, virtually unstoppable.
> 
> ...



This is worse than IEDs. These are IED's that can get to the Objective on their own. 

Suicide bombers are now officially obsolete.


----------



## Enzo (9 May 2006)

I'm not worried, the Autobots will save us 

Ok, semi-serious. The UAVs eh? Well, the larger ones with decent range would require a base for support and a portable operations centre the size of a trailer. The costs and logistics are prohibitive, training would take time and overall it makes for a nice target. The smaller systems such as those suggested by the article fall more along the lines of direct line of sight and that means that the operator eminates RF, which we can trace, jam or interfere with (wouldn't it be funny to redirect the vehicle back against the user?) As always, it becomes chess. When _"they"_ bring a new threat to the field _"we"_ develop ways to counter said threat.

IEDs piss me off and I would love to see them go the way of the Dodo, but they aren't going away anytime soon. The bombers aren't obsolete; they're cheap, easy to train and readily available. As for death from above by remote controlled UAVs? Cool, something else to shoot at. I dunno if I'll be able to draw a bead on a noisy, low flying remotely controlled helicopter bearing down on me at 20kph. I may be laughing too hard trying to hit it with small rocks. :nana:


----------



## FredDaHead (9 May 2006)

While I agree countermeasures will come and will probably prevent anything "bad" from happening, I think it'll take a deadly attack or three before anyone does anything. After all, it took four consecutive attacks and several thousand deaths before we started enforcing cockpit security on large planes, so who's to say it won't take something (not quite equally) bad before we do something about it?


----------



## George Wallace (9 May 2006)

So, these can be the poor man's Tomahawk Missile or TOW.  As I have pointed out before, these things are only limited by one's imagination.  We have built airplanes, tanks, torpedoes, ICBMs, and the list is endless.  For every weapon system we dream up, someone else dreams up a counter measure or bigger weapon.  It is 'life'.  We progress.  Not all that we create is going to be weaponry, and even then some of what we develop in the 'weapons wars' are later used commercially.  Aircraft development took leaps and bounds in WW I and WW II due to the war, as did the automotive and chemical industries and then there are the advances in Medicine.  But if we keep going on this tangent, we will be off topic.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 May 2006)

Enzo, I think you are thinking like a soldier and not like a terrorist.

You want to keep the weapon under control until it reaches a chosen target.  Therefore you need to monitor the weapons flight, receive targeting data, update position.  The terrorist doesn't need to worry about any of that.  In fact a degree of randomness helps the cause.  Remember that Hitler's V-1s were just launched on a heading until they ran out of gas. Arguably they cause more distress to the civilian population than the bombers of the Blitz.

For these guys all they need to do is find a load carrying system , launch and run away.  Any load carrier will do.  One that is GPS guided only increases the effectiveness.

Cheers.


----------



## _TheSaint_ (9 May 2006)

Enzo said:
			
		

> I'm not worried, the Autobots will save us
> 
> Ok, semi-serious. The UAVs eh? Well, the larger ones with decent range would require a base for support and a portable operations centre the size of a trailer. The costs and logistics are prohibitive, training would take time and overall it makes for a nice target. The smaller systems such as those suggested by the article fall more along the lines of direct line of sight and that means that the operator eminates RF, which we can trace, jam or interfere with (wouldn't it be funny to redirect the vehicle back against the user?) As always, it becomes chess. When _"they"_ bring a new threat to the field _"we"_ develop ways to counter said threat.
> 
> IEDs piss me off and I would love to see them go the way of the Dodo, but they aren't going away anytime soon. The bombers aren't obsolete; they're cheap, easy to train and readily available. As for death from above by remote controlled UAVs? Cool, something else to shoot at. I dunno if I'll be able to draw a bead on a noisy, low flying remotely controlled helicopter bearing down on me at 20kph. I may be laughing too hard trying to hit it with small rocks. :nana:



Problem is, YOU might not be there to throw rocks at it, because it might be targeting a bunch of people at Starbucks in Downtown Toronto. These won't be used in Iraq or Afghanistan, they'll be used on civilian populations in Canada and the US.


----------



## aesop081 (9 May 2006)

_TheSaint_ said:
			
		

> Problem is, YOU might not be there to throw rocks at it, because it might be targeting a bunch of people at Starbucks in Downtown Toronto. These won't be used in Iraq or Afghanistan, they'll be used on civilian populations in Canada and the US.



Pike ?
Canucktroop ?
bbbb ?
artsy?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (9 May 2006)

_TheSaint_ said:
			
		

> Problem is, YOU might not be there to throw rocks at it, because it might be targeting a bunch of people at Starbucks in Downtown Toronto. These won't be used in Iraq or Afghanistan, they'll be used on civilian populations in Canada and the US.



I disagree.  Really soft targets like Starbucks they wouldn't waste the resources on when they could walk in with paper bag full of C4, drop it into a garbage can and walk out again.

Where these are dangerous is hitting items civilians can't get to.  Specifically, a symbolic attack on the White House or an economic attack on one of the big Saudi Oil Refineries.


Matt.


----------



## _TheSaint_ (9 May 2006)

I hope there are no "rogue" nations selling these things to terrorists. Forget nukes- they're too hard to aquire.......why not just buy a bunch of Robot Planes and send them in to do the dirty work. I'm surprised we haven't seen any of these things attacking troops or civilians anywhwere yet. I guess it's because the terrorists, so far, can't afford them, or don't have the expertise to build one. How hard can it be though, with off the shelf GPS systems and computer components. These things don't have to be as advanced as the Predator, or other  US UAV's. I think all it's going to take is one major success by the terrorists to prove the utility of autmated delivery systems- then all hell breaks loose...

Here's a timeline of UAV development up to today.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spiesfly/uavs.html


----------



## _TheSaint_ (9 May 2006)

Another good read.

Terrorists' Unmanned Air Force

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002369.html


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 May 2006)

I thought the point of suicide bombings wasn't the technology employed but the willingness of the operator to die and take his enemies with him.  Some sort of twisted sense of honour in other words. That said, I really doubt that even if robot bombs were employed widely we would see a disappearance of those dedicated to their cause extinguishing their own lives with man-packed explosives. Again, thinking that this might is assuming that terrorists are cowards who don't fight fair because they are somehow afraid to.  Quite the contrary, I suspect many fight "unfair" because they 

a) realize it is their only chance of victory
b) feel deep inside that there is honour in coming to grips personally with their enemies, even if only to die in the process

Robots don't scare me.  People dedicated enough to their cause to want to die and take me with them certainly do, though.


----------



## Trinity (9 May 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Pike ?
> Canucktroop ?
> bbbb ?
> artsy?




Good question...

He/She/It joined this morning and already very active
with no profile.

Usually a sign of a troll but this one hasn't screwed up yet.
But I give it time.


----------



## Centurian1985 (9 May 2006)

This was looked at long before 9/11 and continues to be reviewed as technology develops:  

1) Too time intensive to train operators
2) High level of skill involved to hit something by remote control
3) Small payload requires exact hit for effectiveness
4) Radio-control frequencies are easily interdicted by level of technology used by security forces. 
5) Hard to conceal delivery system prior to attack (cant just hide it under your arm)
6) Limited range and hands-on guidance means guidance team has harder team escaping security zone.
7) Requires 'take-off' runway of considerable length that is highly visible and within zone of security force observation. 
8 ) Highly unusual delivery method makes for harder cover story development and higher chances of detection by security forces.  
9) Training requires large open areas and has a high visibility.  
10) Lack of familiarity with an unproven tactic means lack of confidence on part of operators and higher command (higher risk assessment).  
11) Not able to carry a GPS guidance system AND a large enough payload - you can be on target or have a big explosion, but not both....yet.
12) Technology exists for larger UAVs and smaller GPS systems but is not commercially available...yet. 
13) Military's that own UAVs will not sell them to these groups in fear of having trail easily traced back to them.  

I highlighted some of the more important factors - other reasons out there but those are enough for now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 May 2006)

What is stopping the other side from building flying autobots that circle a given area, using sensors to pick up another flying object and attacking it with proximity fused weapon or large recoilless shotgun?

Expect to see a resurgence of quad .50cals or twin 20mm to combat this threat.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 May 2006)

> What is stopping the other side from building flying autobots that circle a given area, using sensors to pick up another flying object and attacking it with proximity fused weapon or large recoilless shotgun?



What's to stop them? How about a shockingly large amount of advanced technology that even the US has trouble making work?  Do you realize how difficult building a high endurance UAV with artificial intelligence (that is what you have just described) would be working in a cave?


----------



## _TheSaint_ (9 May 2006)

I must disagree with some of your reasons Centurion.

1) Too time intensive to train operators
Look at 911....it took many months of flight training at a school in Florida.

2) High level of skill involved to hit something by remote control.
 I think flying a real plane is probably harder. They did it once they can do it again.

3) Small payload requires exact hit for effectiveness
What about chemical/ biological payloads? These could be "sprayed" from the air.

4) Requires 'take-off' runway of considerable length that is highly visible and within zone of security force observation. 
5) Highly unusual delivery method makes for harder cover story development and higher chances of detection by security forces. 

These both fall under the category of "What about Helos?" Look at this thing I can buy right now online. It won't have the payload but does have a camera... it's some weirdass helicopter for 100$ ......I want one! 
Watch the  videos...crazy.

http://www.rctoys.com/draganflyer5tipro.php

In my opinion, well funded terrorists will at some point aquire some form of remotely operated plane to do some damage. All the arguments about what to use to shoot them down are moot, since as the original article says, these planes fly too low and are completely indetectible by current radar, which screens out small stuff like birds. We can either live in la la land or find some other air defense platform disigned to shoot down "little stuff" ...it should also be good for duck huntin'!  At sensitive events like a G-8 summit we could deploy the new air defense platform and take out any pigeons or whatever that show up.


----------



## Armymedic (9 May 2006)

I wouldn't be to quick to discount threats from all sources. They will find a way to attack and make it work. While UAV technology, cost, and all may be prohibitive at this time, does not mean that it is not possible in the very near future.

Remember before 9/11, the though of someone using a airliner as an attack veh was thought of as pure fiction (courtesy of Tom Clancey)


----------



## _TheSaint_ (9 May 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be to quick to discount threats from all sources. They will find a way to attack and make it work. While UAV technology, cost, and all may be prohibitive at this time, does not mean that it is not possible in the very near future.
> 
> Remember before 9/11, the though of someone using a airliner as an attack veh was thought of as pure fiction (courtesy of Tom Clancey)



I think the only reason that the terrorists haven't used em' yet, is a "failure of imagination" on their part. When it happens, and they're successful....look out....

I read in the other article I posted that...

"One scenario features a mass drone attack launched from a tanker or freighter well out in international waters"

That's a bit scary. Considering that there are already "pirates" operating from old freighter "motherships" off of Africas' coast, this wouldn't be that big of a step. Mabye the Navy should be on watch for suspicious Cargo ships approching the US and Canada. A new job for NORAD? I'm not sure they'd detect small planes approaching or think much of them, in any case. Mabye someone with expertise could tell us what the smallest thing is we can pick up on radar and decide if it's a threat.


----------



## Armymedic (9 May 2006)

Do not take my post as support for your position. I was just stating that anything possibly imaginable is practically possible.

Massive drone attacks though, are unlikely. One or two large model planes on preprogrammed computer guided paths above a large open air sports stadium dispensing a biochem weapon....possible.


----------



## Kunu (9 May 2006)

I could have sworn I read an article some time ago which said the LTTE (aka Tamil Tigers) had employed RC model aircraft as "poor man's UAVs" before.  I'll see if I can dig it up.


----------



## Stirling N6123 (9 May 2006)

In the 1960's, the US used a system to detect the electrical impulses generated by trucks and cars moving up and down the Ho Chi Min Trail in Laos. Once detected, loitering B-52's, F-4's and any other attack aircraft could be vectored over the target area to saturate the jungle below. It worked, on numerous occasions. 

Project Igloo white. 

http://home.att.net/~c.jeppeson/igloo_white.html

http://www.constantvzw.com/vj4/gdop/gv/iwhite/igloo.html

That was back in the 60's. I am pretty sure 46 years later, we have the technology to detect drones, and small rocket driven drones or droids in the air. I hold the opinion that with US technology, they have parallel Research and Development being conducted while they develop a certain technology? That parallel R&D is developed to defeat that same technology. This may be obvious to some, but I do not think you could create an advanced technology as it relates to warfare without knowing how to defeat it first.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 May 2006)

Detect them probably, knowing when and where to look is the problem.


----------



## Centurian1985 (9 May 2006)

Look at my posts and you may recall seeing the term "...yet" at the end - of course technology improves over time, and yes the right people are highly aware of this and continue to evaluate the possibility, and 'they' have not found it worthwhile...'yet'!  



			
				_TheSaint_ said:
			
		

> I must disagree with some of your reasons Centurion.



1) Too time intensive to train operators
Look at 911....it took many months of flight training at a school in Florida.
First, consider ROI (Return on Investment) - the AQ spent $500,000 and 19 lives to kill 3,000 plus billions in damage; there's just not enough ROI on a toy plane that can carry only a small quantity of explosive, usually home-made with a low lethal radius.  Second, you are ignoring associated points of cover story and detection, which are extreme limitations on attack capabilities.    

2) High level of skill involved to hit something by remote control.
 I think flying a real plane is probably harder. They did it once they can do it again.
You think? I know.  Flying a real airplane is of course much harder, but flying a model airplane isnt easy either. Try and fly an actual airplane (model or 1-1 scale) under real weather conditions (which is completely unlike a computer game) to understand how tough this can be.  If the weather is too severe you have to call off the attempt which would be a waste of months of planning and training, which really annoys senior planners back at HQ.      

3) Small payload requires exact hit for effectiveness.
What about chemical/ biological payloads? These could be "sprayed" from the air.
 Possible, but first you have to have a facility that can produce a highyl lethal chemical or biological agent in aerosol form that will remain deadly after falling 50-100 feet to the ground wthout beng blown away by wind, evaporate by sun, or diluted by rain. Ever wonder why that is done in containment units? Because one little hiss of escaping air or a drop of liquid on your skin and you are dead.  Then you have to be able to transport it safely to the attack base, then you have to attach it to the plane without arming the canister, then make sure it will remotely open upon direction rather than chance.  Yes its possible but the level of risk and effort isnt worth wiping out your entire attack team or CBR production staff that you spent such a long time training.  Then consider how many it will effect - read up on how much chemical it takes to cover a specific area and you will see that it takes a lot more than 7 pounds of air and liquid agent to be effective, which leads back to ROI.  It looks cool in a Jams Bond film (let me guess...Goldfinger?) but it is highly impractical in real life.  Plus you completely ignored my comment about how radio signals can be blocked or even jammed 

4) Requires 'take-off' runway of considerable length that is highly visible and within zone of security force observation. 
5) Highly unusual delivery method makes for harder cover story development and higher chances of detection by security forces. 
These both fall under the category of "What about Helos?" Look at this thing I can buy right now online. It won't have the payload but does have a camera... it's some weirdass helicopter for 100$ ......I want one! 
Watch the  videos...crazy.
Your stretching for credibility here - helos have the same problem as planes, need line of sight to control and arm, and are even more vulnerable to weather conditions and updrafts/downdrafts.  Further, if it doesnt have the payload, whats your point?  

In my opinion, well funded terrorists will at some point aquire some form of remotely operated plane to do some damage. All the arguments about what to use to shoot them down are mute, since as the original article says, these planes fly too low and are completely indetectible by current radar, which screens out small stuff like birds. We can either live in la la land or find some other air defense platform disigned to shoot down "little stuff" ...it should also be good for duck huntin'!  At sensitive events like a G-8 summit we could deploy the new air defense platform and take out any pigeons or whatever that show up.
There are other ways to handle the situation besides trying to do something stupid like shoot it down with a missile. You watch too many movies. You should also keep up on current events - read the following:
April 11, 2005 - 6:05 PM - Israel Confirms Hizbollah Drone Entered Its Air Space 
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - An unmanned drone sent across theIsrael-Lebanon border by Lebanese Hizbollah guerrillas was spotted over northern Israel on Monday, an Israeli militaryspokeswoman said. Israeli security sources said the small aircraft flew forseveral minutes over Israeli territory and then returned to Lebanon before Israeli aircraft could intercept it. A Hizbollah source said earlier that an "Islamic Resistancesurveillance plane Mersad 1" flew over Israel and then returnedsafely to base. "A short while ago, a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) flownby the Hizbollah terrorist organization flew over westernGalilee in Israeli territory," the Israeli army spokeswomansaid. Witnesses in Lebanon said that just after Hizbollahannounced the overflight, Israeli warplanes broke the soundbarrier over the southern port city of Tyre and a nearbyPalestinian refugee camp. Hizbollah said in November it had flown a smallreconnaissance drone into Israel for the first time in responseto repeated Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace.

   I didnt say it wasnt possible. I said it wasnt practical ...."YET". If Hizbollah was able to employ this is a practical manner they would already be using this to attack Israelis.


----------



## Centurian1985 (9 May 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be to quick to discount threats from all sources. They will find a way to attack and make it work. While UAV technology, cost, and all may be prohibitive at this time, does not mean that it is not possible in the very near future.
> Remember before 9/11, the though of someone using a airliner as an attack veh was thought of as pure fiction (courtesy of Tom Clancey)



I hate to argue with Armymedic, who seems like a nice guy, but he needs to read a bit more about aerial terrorism history...

1946 - By end of WW2, Japanese aircraft have sunk almost 60 US ships using kamikaze attack techniques. 

1992 - Informants working for the Egyptian and U.S. governments reported that a terrorist who had infiltrated the Sudanese Air Force was planning to bomb an Egyptian presidential mansion then crash his fighter into the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. (Note - lots of other incidents between 1992 and 2000 where AQ-linked terrorists were captured with planes for attacks that involved crashing into buildings)

1994 - A disgruntled US FedEx worker tried unsuccessfully to storm a jet's cockpit and crash the plane into a company facility. 

1994 - Algerian Armed Islamic Group (an Islamic terrorist group tied to Osama bin Laden) hijacked an AirFrance commercial jet and threatened to crash it into the Eiffel Tower. French commandos stormed the plane, successfully killing the hijackers during a refueling stop before it could continue onward to its intended target. (A lot of people have never heard of this but this is available on open source in multiple authentic sites).


----------



## _TheSaint_ (9 May 2006)

> Your stretching for credibility here - helos have the same problem as planes, need line of sight to control and arm, and are even more vulnerable to weather conditions and updrafts/downdrafts.  Further, if it doesnt have the payload, whats your point?



I was not trying to say that those "particular" helicopter things were likely to be used by terrorists any time soon. All I was saying was that if it took me 1 minute of googling to find a helicopter with video camera (line of sight not needed) then terrorists with alotta time on their hands can probably find something bigger and better. They would likely be building their own systems anyway, based on some readily available platform. Hell you could use a remote control blimp just as easily, and they're also available on the internet for sale. I'm sure I could do it if I really wanted to, with a few thousand bucks. How hard could it be to strap some kind of bio-weapon to a remote control plane and send it to Yonge Street, or better yet, Wall Street NY. Even if the chemical/biological weapon sprayed in aerosol form didn't have a big human cost, it could shut down the financial center of the world for days while it's decontaminated. I think it's more than just 'possible'. I think it's gonna happen. Pretending that this event is too unlikely to occur is putting on blinders IMO, as well as the CSIS employee's opinion in the article.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 May 2006)

> I thought the point of suicide bombings wasn't the technology employed but the willingness of the operator to die and take his enemies with him.  Some sort of twisted sense of honour in other words. That said, I really doubt that even if robot bombs were employed widely we would see a disappearance of those dedicated to their cause extinguishing their own lives with man-packed explosives. Again, thinking that this might is assuming that terrorists are cowards who don't fight fair because they are somehow afraid to.  Quite the contrary, I suspect many fight "unfair" because they
> 
> a) realize it is their only chance of victory
> b) feel deep inside that there is honour in coming to grips personally with their enemies, even if only to die in the process
> ...



In addition to my earlier comments, I have to wonder - why is this an issue? Given the technology available to defeat this "threat" (and the wherewithal to limit their access to these weapons in the first place) this whole thread seems rather Chicken-Little-ish to me. As if what our enemies have been doing the last few years isn't somehow dangerous or frightening enough to contemplate.


----------



## Centurian1985 (10 May 2006)

_TheSaint_ said:
			
		

> I think the only reason that the terrorists haven't used em' yet, is a "failure of imagination" on their part. When it happens, and they're successful....look out....
> I read in the other article I posted that...
> "One scenario features a mass drone attack launched from a tanker or freighter well out in international waters"
> That's a bit scary. Considering that there are already "pirates" operating from old freighter "motherships" off of Africas' coast, this wouldn't be that big of a step. Mabye the Navy should be on watch for suspicious Cargo ships approching the US and Canada. A new job for NORAD? I'm not sure they'd detect small planes approaching or think much of them, in any case. Mabye someone with expertise could tell us what the smallest thing is we can pick up on radar and decide if it's a threat.



I used to work at/with NORAD for numerous years.  I cant speak on what is going on there, but I can say that no one has yet on this forum come up with a new idea that has not already been thought of by the right person in the right department. And if someone does think of something new, I'll be happy to pass it on to the right people. 

And you are refering to RCS (radar cross-section) - see open source Internet, current Janes information on radar capabilities.


----------



## aesop081 (10 May 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> And you are refering to RCS (radar cross-section) - see open source Internet, current Janes information on radar capabilities.



Jane's is a wonderful thing....but no one will tell you what the truth actualy is.


The saint :

Watching for suspicious mercahnt ships aproaching our cost ?  Why did we think of that  :


----------



## Centurian1985 (10 May 2006)

_TheSaint_ said:
			
		

> I was not trying to say that those "particular" helicopter things were likely to be used by terrorists any time soon. All I was saying was that if it took me 1 minute of googling to find a helicopter with video camera (line of sight not needed) then terrorists with alotta time on their hands can probably find something bigger and better. They would likely be building their own systems anyway, based on some readily available platform. Hell *you could* use a remote control blimp just as easily, and they're also available on the internet for sale. I'm sure* I could* do it *if I really wanted to*, with a few thousand bucks. How hard could it be to strap some kind of bio-weapon to a remote control plane and send it to Yonge Street, or better yet, Wall Street NY. Even if the chemical/biological weapon sprayed in aerosol form didn't have a big human cost, it could shut down the financial center of the world for days while it's decontaminated. I think it's more than just 'possible'. *I think it's gonna happen*. Pretending that this event is too unlikely to occur is putting on blinders IMO, as well as the CSIS employee's opinion in the article.



All the possibilities you present are indeed possibilities, but in practical application I must agree to disagree. See my PM.
Unfortunately I cannot comment on the expertise of CSIS....here, or on any open net.   

BTW, a word to the wise on discussing terrorist tactics - its okay to say 'they could' or 'you could', but never say 'I could' followed by 'if I really wanted to' or 'I think its gonna happen'. Some people may get excited...


----------



## _TheSaint_ (10 May 2006)

> Watching for suspicious mercahnt ships aproaching our cost ?  Why did we think of that



youre right they're probably already doing that. Not sure if there's any changes that could be made to look out for a "mothership" if there was one approaching the coast. I guess it depends how close they'd have to be to launch the attack wave. Most likely no one would know till it was too late.


----------



## muskrat89 (10 May 2006)

> And if someone does think of something new, I'll be happy to pass it on to the right people.



Fed the right combination of pinto beans, chorizo and chipotle salsa, I have trained my dog to shoot rocket-like flames out of his behind with astounding accuracy and destructive power. I have fashioned a helmet of sorts for him, out of the fallen-off arm of a saguaro cactus - that will make his front end extremely dangerous as well. My wife is disabled and we have found that she passes through checkpoints fairly easily when accompanied by Rover, wearing a "Service Dog" sign. That being said, we haven't tried that yet, while he was wearing the cactus-cap. 

I tell you this, knowing full well that you can, and will - pass it along to the right people. I am torn now, and after teaching my dog how to do this, I had no idea my wife would use his powers for evil. They need to be stopped. Please, don't delay....


----------



## _TheSaint_ (10 May 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> BTW, a word to the wise on discussing terrorist tactics - its okay to say 'they could' or 'you could', but never say 'I could' followed by 'if I really wanted to' or 'I think its gonna happen'. Some people may get excited...



LOL. Good point.


----------



## Trinity (10 May 2006)

_TheSaint_ said:
			
		

> youre right they're probably already doing that. Not sure if there's any changes that could be made to look out for a "mothership" if there was one approaching the coast. I guess it depends how close they'd have to be to launch the attack wave. Most likely no one would know till it was too late.



Hey.. Troll Boy

WTF is your point.

You came here, bitched about possible 9/11 type attacks or other types of terrorist attacks,
been shot down for the most part.  

Either, you have a point to posting about this, A SOLUTION on how it should be dealt with,
or quite simply, you have a hidden troll agenda.  

What is it.
1. you have a point to this... please tell us
2. you have a solution to the attacks
3. you're a troll... 

Please choose one and respond.


----------



## aesop081 (10 May 2006)

_TheSaint_ said:
			
		

> youre right they're probably already doing that. Not sure if there's any changes that could be made to look out for a "mothership" if there was one approaching the coast. I guess it depends how close they'd have to be to launch the attack wave. Most likely no one would know till it was too late.



Probably ? I've been doing it for a year...the CF has been doing it for 25 years with the CP-140 and longer than that with the CP-107, Neptune, Tracker.........You have no idea what its like looking for ships out on the ocen so cease with this perticular line of thinking ( for which you are grossly underqualified to comment)

Edited to fix quote box thingamajigger....


----------



## Centurian1985 (10 May 2006)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Fed the right combination of pinto beans, chorizo and chipotle salsa, I have trained my dog to shoot rocket-like flames out of his behind with astounding accuracy and destructive power. I have fashioned a helmet of sorts for him, out of the fallen-off arm of a saguaro cactus - that will make his front end extremely dangerous as well. My wife is disabled and we have found that she passes through checkpoints fairly easily when accompanied by Rover, wearing a "Service Dog" sign. That being said, we haven't tried that yet, while he was wearing the cactus-cap.
> 
> I tell you this, knowing full well that you can, and will - pass it along to the right people. I am torn now, and after teaching my dog how to do this, I had no idea my wife would use his powers for evil. They need to be stopped. Please, don't delay....



Hahahah!  :rofl:

Sounds like a CBR issue to me... I apologize if in the near future you're sleep is disturbed by men in black with masks... followed by a K9-EOD team  ("Fire in the hole!")  ;D


----------



## _TheSaint_ (10 May 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Hey.. Troll Boy
> 
> WTF is your point.
> 
> ...



Where is all this hostility coming from? If I am somehow "answerable to you" and I don't see why, then I choose option 1). While I am not in the military and don't have first hand knowledge of how it operates, I thought that some might be interested in a discussion of technology and it's possible uses. I am in no position, and I suspect, neither are you to come up with "solutions". That's for the DOD to figure out. I was just looking for a friendly debate about this news story from some that might have better information than I on the topic. I am also interested in UAV's and their possible future (non-terrorist) uses.


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 May 2006)

_TheSaint_,

It's a pretty big leap from the original article to declaring this:



			
				_TheSaint_ said:
			
		

> I think it's more than just 'possible'. I think it's gonna happen.



And you haven't exactly been revising your argument based on the experience based opinions of some of the above members regarding the use of various technologies and capabilities under discussion.

You're not debating this issue, you're just beating the same tune on the same drum no matter what anyone else posts.  That comes a lot closer to trolling in nature than the other options.


----------



## Trinity (10 May 2006)

_TheSaint_ said:
			
		

> Where is all this hostility coming from?




From having 20 other people come onto the site, having their first post being incredibly
huge and debate with their own agenda, with no real argument or ability to back it up.
You fit the profile.



> If I am somehow "answerable to you"



No, but you're answerable to this community, of which I am apart, and like you, can voice my opinion.
Others can support me or rebut me.  So far.. its been support that you're trolling.



> While I am not in the military and don't have first hand knowledge of how it operates, I thought that some might be interested in a discussion of technology and it's possible uses. I am in no position, and I suspect, neither are you to come up with "solutions".



No, that's right you don't.  You just "google" remote UAV's and use that as your answer.  Oh wait, you're not knowledgeable, but
its amazing how you can come up with plausible scenarios and discount what other people are saying.. but.. then again
what do you know, you don't have *"first hand knowledge"*


Self admittedly, you know nothing and yet you post vehemently about it and shoot down people's opinions.
If this is a give and take like you are claiming, wanting to learn, you really haven't done that.

See where the hostility comes from?

I bet you're smart enough to "google" a UAV chat board and talk UAV's there.  That would be infinitely
better than a bunch of army guys.


edit... changed "remove" to remote... (stupid typo)


----------



## _TheSaint_ (10 May 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> _TheSaint_,
> 
> It's a pretty big leap from the original article to declaring this:
> 
> ...



I took from the article that this was just a matter of time and technology, not that it was a "romote possibilty".  The problem I've had with some of the responses is that, although the posters are obviously informed, they don't take into account the original article which declares that these things CANNOT be seen on radar. So any "solutions" based on what we now have just won't work. I guess then, my point is there needs to be some new air defense system to counter UAV attacks.


----------



## _TheSaint_ (10 May 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> From having 20 other people come onto the site, having their first post being incredibly
> huge and debate with their own agenda, with no real argument or ability to back it up.
> You fit the profile.
> 
> ...



Well actually, aside from your own, most of the responses have been thoughtful and informed.


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 May 2006)

_TheSaint_ said:
			
		

> I guess then, my point is there needs to be some new air defense system to counter UAV attacks.



Please provide the risk vs. cost analysis for a system to watch over every potential target for incoming flying objects with the radar cross-section of a sparrow and the ability to shoot them down without releasing the suspected bio-chemical munition.


----------



## aesop081 (10 May 2006)

_TheSaint_ said:
			
		

> (1)*I took from the article that this was just a matter of time and technology, not that it was a "romote possibilty".  * The problem I've had with some of the responses is that, although the posters are obviously informed, they don't take into account the original article (2) *which declares that these things CANNOT * be seen on radar. So any "solutions" based on what we now have just won't work. I guess then, my point is there needs to be some (3) *new air defense system to counter UAV attacks*.



1) You are not freinds with "armymatters" are you ?

2) I'm a radar operator.  The people who  wrote the article are not..........Catch my drift about their ability to declare anything ?

3) So you are an air defence expert now too ?


----------



## Trinity (10 May 2006)

_TheSaint_ said:
			
		

> Well actually, aside from your own, most of the responses have been thoughtful and informed.



Oh, but I did answer you with informed answers, pointing out exactly why I thought you were
a troll. Answering and using YOUR post as a specific example for questions.  Sorry if that's
not thoughtful and detailed enough.  

Now Informed???  The only person who's not informed here is you.  We have radar
techs and other people with loads of training on this. You have a magazine article
that you're using like a bible.  Plus, then discrediting them and insulting them by
saying they are "mis informed"

I really hope you don't think you've been responding in a thoughtful and informed mannor.

Just because I think you're a twit, doesn't mean I'm not being thoughtful and informed.


----------



## _TheSaint_ (10 May 2006)

your quote...



> Plus, then discrediting them and insulting them by
> saying they are "mis informed"



my quote...



> although the posters are obviously informed



Can you see the difference?


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 May 2006)

_TheSaint_ said:
			
		

> Can you see the difference?



You shouldn't take yourself out of context:



			
				_TheSaint_ said:
			
		

> I took from the article that this was just a matter of time and technology, not that it was a "romote possibilty".  *The problem I've had with some of the responses is that, although the posters are obviously informed, they don't take into account the original article which declares that these things CANNOT be seen on radar.* So any "solutions" based on what we now have just won't work. I guess then, my point is there needs to be some new air defense system to counter UAV attacks.



So, they aren't misinformed, they're just not listening to you and slavishly adhering to the original article?


----------



## Trinity (10 May 2006)

_TheSaint_ said:
			
		

> your quote...
> 
> my quote...
> 
> Can you see the difference?



I stand corrected...  on that point.  I obviously read that one wrong.  But that doesn't negate 
the many issues that I have brought up with your posting. 



You have to admit, you come to this site, out of the blue, no profile, no idea who you are.
Start a topic, ignore some good advice, and cause friction with MANY of the posters (not just me),
difference is, I'm calling it as I see it.  I stopped arguing with trolls (or perceived trolls) because
they don't listen.

You really haven't budged on your position.  We still don't know who you are. I have personally
witnessed this more than a few times in the last few months that I'm getting tired of people coming
here, spewing crap they know nothing about and then picking fights with our serving members. 

Can you see where I'm coming from.  

Its bed time for this little camper.  So, don't wait up for a response.  I'll let my brethern here
either support me or chastize me as they will in my opinions of the situation and the post.


----------



## _TheSaint_ (10 May 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> You shouldn't take yourself out of context:
> 
> So, they aren't misinformed, they're just not listening to you and slavishly adhering to the original article?



I just don't understand all the hostility I'm seeing here. Why are people attacking me personally for my opinions? They are free to have their 'more informed' opinions and think whatever they wish of mine. In fact, they can go to another thread and talk about something else with other "informed" people, since they clearly believe this is not an important issue. Not everyone on this site is an expert in radar signatures, so telling me that everyone here is more informed than me is pushing it. If these individuals are not happy with the discussion here I humbly submit that they can go to another thread and debate with the more informed, subjects of greater importance to their own personal biases...
There they can bask in the glory of the informed and share with each other unusually informed opinions smiling happily as they walk off into the sunset holding hands and informing each other....


----------



## aesop081 (10 May 2006)

_TheSaint_ said:
			
		

> I just don't understand all the hostility I'm seeing here. Why are people attacking me personally for my opinions? They are free to have their 'more informed' opinions and think whatever they wish of mine. In fact, they can go to another thread and talk about something else with other "informed" people, since they clearly believe this is not an important issue. Not everyone on this site is an expert in radar signatures, so telling me that everyone here is more informed than me is pushing it. If these individuals are not happy with the discussion here I humbly submit that they can go to another thread and debate with the more informed, subjects of greater importance to their own personal biases...
> There they can bask in the glory of the informed and share with each other unusually informed opinions smiling happily as they walk off into the sunset holding hands and informing each other....



Your sarcasm realy doesnt improve your already precarious position here.  Like Trinity, i beleive you to be a troll, either a new one or a re-incarnation of a previous troll that was banned


----------



## Centurian1985 (10 May 2006)

Ive had enough fun for one night.

Can a moderator lock this thread up for the night?  No-one is learning anything new...    :blotto:


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 May 2006)

We're waiting for the point.

4 pages, 49 replies, and all we have is:

a.   little commercial off the shelf UAVs exist, (fact)

b.   they have very small radar cross sections (fact)

c.   no-one has published a counter-measure (as if they would)

And no novel solution from you. You identified the problem by posting the article. Fine.  We're not about to panic because we do not see that there is a credible enough threat to worry at this time.

Should we?
Realistically?
Please provide proof other than the article.

It's journalism!

Journalism = a few facts + some conjecture + some sensationalism.

Perhaps we have a slight mistrust of journalistic integrity - It still doesn't make it a worthy concern just because someone cobbled together an article that some editor liked enough to fill some column inches.  One guy blew up a building in Oklahoma using a truck - we still don't track and examine every truck everywhere just to try and stop the next one.  Perfectly feasible, low tech, anyone could pull it off - but not worth the degree of effort and cost to attempt to neutralize the threat.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Just because it's possible doesn't make the risk level high enough to stop everything and start scaning the skies for tiny airplanes.


----------



## _TheSaint_ (10 May 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Ive had enough fun for one night.
> 
> Can a moderator lock this thread up for the night?  No-one is learning anything new...    :blotto:



If that's possible I say do it, do it now! What was once interesting has become an argument for no apparent reason.  ???


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 May 2006)

That's all for tonight folks.

If you have something truly worthwhile to add, approach a Mod tomorrow duriung daylight hours and the thread may be reopened.


----------

