NationStates Jolt Archive

I hadn't thought of this but it really is quite smart when you think about it.

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

Ok anybody able to come up with some counter measures.

its time for lazers. thats the only thing capable of beating flying robots...

The headline reads as something out of a 1950s Superman cartoon, or something like that...

What about the :experts, I wonder?

Edit: And better radars!

The simplest countermeasure is to ban their sale worldwide. Any company selling such products to anyone other than a legitimate government would be prohibited from selling it's other products in lucrative markets like the USA. Also make possesion of such items illegal in nations under threat from terrorism, so the terrorists can't openly test their new toy.

Trained birds with laser helmets and little missile launchers on their feet.

Don't we already call those things missiles?

These patchwork delivery systems should be vulnerable to the same kind of countermeasures. Hell, you could probably slap together a radio signal jammer from parts at Radio Shack to bring down radio-controlled planes.

I've always thought that a radio contolled aircraft would be a good tool for nobbling assassination targets. Of course they can probably detect and jam the radio signals. Robots however...

The simplest countermeasure is to ban their sale worldwide. Any company selling such products to anyone other than a legitimate government would be prohibited from selling it's other products in lucrative markets like the USA. Also make possesion of such items illegal in nations under threat from terrorism, so the terrorists can't openly test their new toy.
Banning remote-controlled aircrafts? Heh... Good luck to ya!

Remote-control planes are not hard to get hold of, according to Jean-Christian Delessert, who runs a specialist model airplane shop near Geneva.

"Putting together a large-scale model is not difficult -- all you need is a few materials and a decent electronics technician," says Delessert.

In his view, "if terrorists get hold of that, it will be impossible to do anything about it. We did some tests with a friend who works at a military radar base: they never detected us... if the radar picks anything up, it thinks it is a flock of birds and automatically wipes it."

Japanese company Yamaha, meanwhile, has produced 95-kilogram (209-pound) robot helicopter that is 3.6 metres (11.8 feet) long and has a 256 cc engine.
And it doesn't seem like banning the sale of model aircraft would stop any zealous terrorist...
Bruce Simpson, an engineer from New Zealand, managed to produce an even more dangerous contraption in his own garage: a mini-cruise missile. He made it out of readily available materials at a cost of less than 5,000 dollars (4,000 euros).

Banning remote-controlled aircrafts? Heh... Good luck to ya!


And it doesn't seem like banning the sale of model aircraft would stop any zealous terrorist...
Countermeasures are never 100% effective. Chaff and flares don't stop planes from being shot down. Hell, an F117 was shot down over the Balkans, and it's a stealth aircraft. Countermeasures only reduce the probability of a certain type of attack working.

Put up as many legal and commercial barriers to model aircraft as possible and the risk of being attacked with one declines.

its time for lazers. thats the only thing capable of beating flying robots...
That's LASERs. It's an anacronym.

And what about electronic jamming? EM Shielding is still sufficiently undeveloped as to allow most remote control to be phased out by an enormous surge in power.

I say build up on the lasers and booze and bring on these robot bastards.

they're not takin me down without a fight, and some whiskey.

Seems to me a bird of prey hovering at a suitable altitude above vulnerable targets could easily detect one of these things and could be trained using pavlovian techniques to swoop down on it in lieu of its normal prey. Now if you strapped this bird to a hovering aircraft with surface to air missile arrangement using either some sort of direct brain connection or the methods BF Skinner used in WW2 you could blow these things out of the air.

Countermeasures are never 100% effective. Chaff and flares don't stop planes from being shot down. Hell, an F117 was shot down over the Balkans, and it's a stealth aircraft. Countermeasures only reduce the probability of a certain type of attack working.

True, but we're talking military-grade technology in those missiles that have been designed to circumvent those specific countermeasures. Any kind of seeker device made in a workshop or constructed off of plans will likely be much lower grade and easier to spoof.

Put up as many legal and commercial barriers to model aircraft as possible and the risk of being attacked with one declines.

That may be a way to deal with the kits an pre-packaged parts, but you could probably find the plans and buy the neccessary materials over the internet and build them yourself. Unless the plans and necessary materials become restricted too, you're not going to be able to stop these things from getting built.

Countermeasures are never 100% effective. Chaff and flares don't stop planes from being shot down. Hell, an F117 was shot down over the Balkans, and it's a stealth aircraft. Countermeasures only reduce the probability of a certain type of attack working.

Put up as many legal and commercial barriers to model aircraft as possible and the risk of being attacked with one declines.
I just think banning them would be going a step too far. I mean, they *might* be used by terrorists, while cars *are* used and nobody is advocating that cars should be banned for reasons of security.

It's like that good ol' defense of private gun ownership: They might be used for something illegal, but should you take away guns from law-abiding citizens for that reason?

Woops...
http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/8858/police7mp.jpg

That may be a way to deal with the kits an pre-packaged parts, but you could probably find the plans and buy the neccessary materials over the internet and build them yourself. Unless the plans and necessary materials become restricted too, you're not going to be able to stop these things from getting built.
You present my point in a pleasing manner :) I agree with you.

True, but we're talking military-grade technology in those missiles that have been designed to circumvent those specific countermeasures. Any kind of seeker device made in a workshop or constructed off of plans will likely be much lower grade and easier to spoof.
I was just making an analogy. I was comparing the fallibility of military countermeasures to legal and commercial "countermeasures" that I proposed.


That may be a way to deal with the kits an pre-packaged parts, but you could probably find the plans and buy the neccessary materials over the internet and build them yourself. Unless the plans and necessary materials become restricted too, you're not going to be able to stop these things from getting built.
Homemade ones will often be less reliable, and some necessary parts may be banned as well. Plus since possesion of such a model plane could be made illegal, testing the homemade plane could likely result in the terrorist's arrest.

That may be a way to deal with the kits an pre-packaged parts, but you could probably find the plans and buy the neccessary materials over the internet and build them yourself. Unless the plans and necessary materials become restricted too, you're not going to be able to stop these things from getting built.
And you'd have to ban all radio controlled vehicles because they could be easily canabalised. And ban people from learning electronics.

I just think banning them would be going a step too far. I mean, they *might* be used by terrorists, while cars *are* used and nobody is advocating that cars should be banned for reasons of security.

It's like that good ol' defense of private gun ownership: They might be used for something illegal, but should you take away guns from law-abiding citizens for that reason?

Woops...
http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/8858/police7mp.jpg
Certain people are prohibited from driving cars. Testing, registration and licensing may be required to own a model airplane.

There is a difference here. There is a constitutionally protected right to own firearms in the USA. Not so for model airplanes.

effective countermeasure (http://www.auto-sfondi-desktop.com/--nge--/evangelion/evangelion_0001/Evangelion-Toji-Suzuhara_0001.jpg)

I was just making an analogy. I was comparing the fallibility of military countermeasures to legal and commercial "countermeasures" that I proposed.

Ah. My anolometer must be busted today.

Homemade ones will often be less reliable, and some necessary parts may be banned as well. Plus since possesion of such a model plane could be made illegal, testing the homemade plane could likely result in the terrorist's arrest.
Well, when we're talking reliability, it only needs to be durable enough for two flights: one test, one use. Also, there are plenty of places in the world where a model plane can be tested without notice. A farm owned by the local sleeper cell, for example.

And, if you check around through Google and whatnot, you can probably find model enthusiasts that make these things from scratch, and do so with precision and quality. We're not talking atomic bomb parts, after all, just model planes. All you need to make and maintain a model airplane, even larger models, can be found in average high-school machine shop.

That's LASERs. It's an anacronym.

And what about electronic jamming? EM Shielding is still sufficiently undeveloped as to allow most remote control to be phased out by an enormous surge in power.

You wouldn't be able to stop pre-programmed flights that way.

There is a difference here. There is a constitutionally protected right to own firearms in the USA. Not so for model airplanes.
There's another difference between banning guns and model aeroplanes. Most criminals who use guns wouldn't have the know-how to make their own if they couldn't get them any other way. Yet the sort of people who would use model planes to commit terrorist attacks are the sort of people who are motivated enough and potentially knowledgeable enough to build their own if need be.

Don't we already call those things missiles?

These patchwork delivery systems should be vulnerable to the same kind of countermeasures. Hell, you could probably slap together a radio signal jammer from parts at Radio Shack to bring down radio-controlled planes.

No, we call them unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). And as I've already noted, not all are radio-controlled. Some receive pre-programmed flight plans prior to launch.

Ok, we don't ban model airplanes, but we require all US citizens to carry a full-choke 10 guage shotgun with a scope so they can shoot the fuckers down if we're attacked by them.

Ok, we don't ban model airplanes, but we require all US citizens to carry a full-choke 10 guage shotgun with a scope so they can shoot the fuckers down if we're attacked by them.

That's more like it! Give everybody their own countermeasure. Although, I have the feeling bird populations might suffer:

"It's a terrorist attack!"

*BLAM*

"...that was a pigeon."

Oh, and "experts" are saying this? Funny, I wasn't contacted for that article... :p

EDIT: And I'm not just being cheeky here. I actually am considered an expert on these things. Been writing about them for over eight years now.

That's more like it! Give everybody their own countermeasure. Although, I have the feeling bird populations might suffer:

"It's a terrorist attack!"

*BLAM*

"...that was a pigeon."
If it results in less bird shit on my car I'm all for it.

Certain people are prohibited from driving cars. Testing, registration and licensing may be required to own a model airplane.

There is a difference here. There is a constitutionally protected right to own firearms in the USA. Not so for model airplanes.
Well, I'd sooner support prohibiting certain people from owning and using model airplanes than banning the veichles entirely. As I said, I feel that a blanket ban would be needlessly excessive.

Well, I'd sooner support prohibiting certain people from owning and using model airplanes than banning the veichles entirely. As I said, I feel that a blanket ban would be needlessly excessive.
I've already abandoned that idea in favor of giving everyone a 10 gauge, full-choke shotgun with a scope to shoot down the model aircraft.

http://www.ushomeguard.org/deck/index.html
Now imagine instead of people around the US watching security cameras on their computers to see if people are sneaking into nuclear powerplants, people at home can fly model Sopwith Camels with machine guns on them circling potential terrorist targets in case one of these bogies comes along, like a sort of really cool real life flight sim.

http://www.ushomeguard.org/deck/index.html
Now imagine instead of people around the US watching security cameras on their computers to see if people are sneaking into nuclear powerplants, people at home can fly model Sopwith Camels with machine guns on them circling potential terrorist targets in case one of these bogies comes along, like a sort of really cool real life flight sim.
I can spot the fatal flaw with that right away.

All the cameras watch only those areas where no individual should ever be? "No-man zones"? No such thing. Maintenance happens. If people were serious about taking out a piece of national infrastructure, they would buy uniforms legally and show up at precisely the kind of place that's supposed to see a maintenance crew.

And the last thing I would do is give the general public acess to real-time surveilance of those very places. It sure makes things easier for troublemakers.

http://www.ushomeguard.org/deck/index.html
Now imagine instead of people around the US watching security cameras on their computers to see if people are sneaking into nuclear powerplants, people at home can fly model Sopwith Camels with machine guns on them circling potential terrorist targets in case one of these bogies comes along, like a sort of really cool real life flight sim.
So where do I sign up to get my flying machine gun?

So where do I sign up to get my flying machine gun?

I want the machine gun attached to my car, which should also be given the ability to fly. Finally someone will take the suzuki sidekick seriously (or not)!!!

I can spot the fatal flaw with that right away.

All the cameras watch only those areas where no individual should ever be? "No-man zones"? No such thing. Maintenance happens. If people were serious about taking out a piece of national infrastructure, they would buy uniforms legally and show up at precisely the kind of place that's supposed to see a maintenance crew.

And the last thing I would do is give the general public acess to real-time surveilance of those very places. It sure makes things easier for troublemakers.
Maintence personell would be arriving at pre-arranged times in pre arranged places. They would also be challenged over the loudspeaker. Another possibility would be to provide the people working in the security centre with photos of anyone supposed to be doing maintenence on that day and allow them to check the faces of the maitenence team with the photos of whoever is supposed to be there.

I want the machine gun attached to my car, which should also be given the ability to fly. Finally someone will take the suzuki sidekick seriously (or not)!!!
I say fit all new cars with SAM launchers and radar systems. And motorbikes should be fitted with machine guns for high speed chases. And rocket engines. And I should be given a tank. Cos......em......*steals tank keys and drives away* Don't stop thinking about tomorrow, don't stop, it'll soon be here!

I can spot the fatal flaw with that right away.

All the cameras watch only those areas where no individual should ever be? "No-man zones"? No such thing. Maintenance happens. If people were serious about taking out a piece of national infrastructure, they would buy uniforms legally and show up at precisely the kind of place that's supposed to see a maintenance crew.

And the last thing I would do is give the general public acess to real-time surveilance of those very places. It sure makes things easier for troublemakers.
Actually, if you read the whole thing it's quite clever. The people only see still images where the computers have spotted movement, they don't know whereabouts in the country they're from, and the system gives them staged test pictures to make sure they're doing it right.

I say fit all new cars with SAM launchers and radar systems. And motorbikes should be fitted with machine guns for high speed chases. And rocket engines. And I should be given a tank. Cos......em......*steals tank keys and drives away* Don't stop thinking about tomorrow, don't stop, it'll soon be here!


If im in a tank thats probably the last song I'd be playing as my wave of impending doom and destruction is unleashed upon the world.

I hadn't thought of this but it really is quite smart when you think about it.

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

Ok anybody able to come up with some counter measures.
You know, I always wonder if it is articles like this one that give peoples ideas.

If you really can't do anything against it, what's more important: Informing the public and not being able to do anything about it or frantically working on a solution and then go public once you have found one?

Anway, my 2¢.

You know, I always wonder if it is articles like this one that give peoples ideas.

If you really can't do anything against it, what's more important: Informing the public and not being able to do anything about it or frantically working on a solution and then go public once you have found one?

Anway, my 2¢.

"Here's an idea the terrorists haven't thought of yet."
*Publishes idea*
*Terrorist reads magasine, uses idea*
"See? I told you there was a danger..."

Like that? ;)

I tend to believe that these kind of articles are only causing unneccesary fear amongst the public, and not contributing all too much to the public debate.

I tend to believe that these kind of articles are only causing unneccesary fear amongst the public, and not contributing all too much to the public debate.

Yahtzee!

Yahtzee!
:p
And Yahtzee was his name-o

"Here's an idea the terrorists haven't thought of yet."
*Publishes idea*
*Terrorist reads magasine, uses idea*
"See? I told you there was a danger..."

Like that? ;)
Yeah. Just like that :D

Same with quoting "how open the borders are". Bad enough that they are. Do you really need to tell everyone?
I tend to believe that these kind of articles are only causing unneccesary fear amongst the public, and not contributing all too much to the public debate.
That's the impression I get when reading those kind of articles, too.

The use for this technology seems limited. I'll only really help if you want to get over a fence or something. This technology would be pretty pointless in a dense urban area, where the majority of western terrorist attacks have taken place.

Besides, a RPG would get the job done just as easily in most cases, such as airports.

An effective defense against such aircraft, in my opinion, would be computer guided anti-aircraft guns. Fast and responsive. As soon as an aircraft is sighted the guns and aim at it and shoot it down in a hail of bullets. These aircraft aren't going to have much armour if any. All you need to do is keep guards on duty. If they see something, report it to the control room who will tell the system that the aircraft is there and is not just a group of flying ducks. Work on the response times of the human element and you should be fine.

Pfft, these things are pathetic, and I'm not even sure why I bothered posting.

The article is not entirely correct; the U.S. military employs radars capable of detecting medium-sized birds at considerable range. Nor is destroying them any trouble at all: the military uses a plethora of weapons that could easily down them: the Patriot and Stinger surface-to-air missiles, various air-to-air missiles, the SM-2, the Phalanx CIWS...heck, even a rifle or machine gun, given the range and speed at which these aircraft would be employed -- but that is precisely the problem. They fly low enough to avoid easy radar detection, and slow enough that they would be automatically "screened out" by the computer.