Admin Comment by Thomas J Coyle III on January 23, 2011 at 7:55pm

@Mike,

An interesting concept. I suspect that amature UAVs will eventually become weapons of choice for home grown terrorists.

Regards,

TCIII

Comment by Jeff on January 23, 2011 at 8:50pm

Who says someone couldn't make an amateur UAV as a weapon as it is now?  I do see your point though and do sorta agree if they were accessible as RTF UAV's there could be problems.

- Jeff

3D Robotics Comment by Chris Anderson on January 23, 2011 at 9:30pm

There was a good Robots Podcast with him on this last year. It's here. All very theoretical, as you might expect from a law professor, but the distinction between general purpose and special purpose robotics is useful.

Comment by Duane Brocious on January 23, 2011 at 9:44pm

Manufacturers ar generaly imune from the inappropriate "use" of their products, otherwise every auto company in the world would do nothing but pay lawsuits. Defects and negligence are still their responsibility. This recommended legal status backfired in the case of firearms as it is difficult to go ater fiearms mfgs for defects and negligence (RE: Remington 700).

 

The Japanese used balloon bombs which caused the only casualties of WWI in the continental US during WWII. Why didn't their families and the US Govt sue the Montgolfier family? Because they couldn't. The inventor is not responsible for the end user.

Comment by bGatti on January 23, 2011 at 10:46pm

In a country that arrests people for videotaping their own arrest, good luck predicting who the Police will arrest next.

Developer Comment by John Arne Birkeland on January 24, 2011 at 2:12am

Thomas: I have to disagree with your statement about weapons of choice. If I try to think as an terrorist, I would look for an easy solution with little chance of failure and maximum damage potential. Exactly what UAV is not. You would be hard pressed to find a more failure prone, low yield solution with high technical requirements.

Comment by Gerry Lichter on January 24, 2011 at 2:57am

John Arne Birkeland, you make a good point.

 

It's not like major militarys are stingey with their explosives. Cruise missles are more about reduced collateral damage than they are about increased probability of success. Otherwise: they could just use a nuke for near 100% success rate.

 

Reducing collateral damage isn't really terrorist modus operandi.

Admin Comment by Thomas J Coyle III on January 24, 2011 at 5:32am

@John,

The Maja that I have just finished can carry close to 2kg on a one way trip. If that 2kg was C4, it could cause quite a bit of damage. Also, when properly built and tested most amature UAVs can be reliable enough for a short one way trip.

Just a thought.

Regards,

TCIII

Comment by Duane Brocious on January 24, 2011 at 5:47am

Much easier to fill a van with drums of fertilizer and diesel fuel.

Even the assasination of our presidents were with pretty lousy guns for their time.

Even an atomic bomb is pretty low tech, it is the radioactive material that is tough to get.

Moderator Comment by Gary Mortimer on January 24, 2011 at 5:52am

Guys lets rather not be heading down this road with this thread, otherwise we will have to close it. We all know the implications.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page