Posted by Chris Anderson on November 21, 2009 at 11:30pm
There's a provocative piece in the current issue of the AUVSI's offical magazine, Umanned Systems. It asks how likely it it is that terrorists will use UAVs, which is as you might imagine is a question that comes up quite often for those of us in the open source UAV world, where we don't restrict who uses our technology.
The article notes that UAVs are not the best choice for terrorists delivering explosives, given their complexity and relatively low carrying capacity, but does raise the issue of UAV-distributed chemical and biological weapons. It quotes Vann Van Diepen, then the Department of Defense's acting deputy secretary for nonproliferation, warning in 2002 that UAVs "are a potential delivery system for weapons of mass destruction and indeed and ideally suited for the delivery of chemical and biological weapons, given UAV's ability to disseminate aerosols in the right place at the right altitudes."
But others quoted in the article are less concerned. Wayne Morse, president of American Dynamic Flight Systems, a UAV maker, said it's unlikely that terrorists would choose UAVs. "It doesn't make sense. UAVs are very complex and terrorists want to terrorise. How can you best do that that? If you have people willing to kill themselves, that's what terrorizes. So why aim UAVS at the Super Bowl when you can have somebody walk up and self-detonate before they go through stadium security and cause mass panic?"
Renting a Cessna would allow a terrorist to carry a much larger load, much more simply, Morse said.
The article is available as a pdf to AUVSI members. BTW, joining AUVSI costs just $50 a year for individuals, and comes with a free Unmanned Systems subscription. Highly recommended!
Okay, I think this thread has now deviated too far from the original subject, and I'm closing it. Enough people have had their say; let's now return to our regularly scheduled programming of, well, programming. There are other places where people can discuss policy.
Partisan politics aside, this discussion is moving away from the reality of the situation. We are no longer in a war on terrorism. The right war as it was called during the election cycle is now what I like to call a “shooting” overseas contingency operation. Again dogging the real problem which is/are the manned aviation interests. I wholeheartedly agree with the statements about us losing the technical edge and bring it up at every possible opportunity.
I'd ask that the usual rules of DIY Drones apply in this discussion: no politics (let's refrain from talking about "Republican" views), no nationalism (or antinationalism) and no personal attacks. This is a sensitive topic, which is all the more reason to stress the need for a constructive and respectful discourse.
The "notion" is that this tech is beyond the scope of adversarial interest. This is the old fuel that started the fire. The technology is low hanging fruit when viewed as a threat and exacerbated by the lack of a powerful lobby.
Interesting article, but I tend to agree with wayne morse, in terms of destructive purposes, but what about if terrorists used them for basic aerial surveillance?
Comments