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.
"I'm sure our time could be better spent on coding"
Sadly, Morli, most of us live in countries which have outlawed writing code. It is safe to say that most of the people in this forum live in reasonable fear of being arrested and jailed or fined millions of dollars for having built microcomputer projects. Even the simplest RGB Color led board (which is driven by a 50 cent microcontroller) violates federal law the moment it is shipped, or powered up - unless it has been tested and preapproved by the FCC. You are saying, we should just ignore the fact that the government is constantly threatening to squelch the means by which we make our living. We should be happy that a few engineers at boeing are well enough connected to participate in the new economy, and the rest of us should be willing to dicker around so long as we don't have the temerity to try to make a living engaged in an intellectual pursuit?
How should we live (subsistence farming) (get a "real job"). If you aren't aware of the degree to which the US is beating down innovation - then you are invited to become more informed; in the meantime, you might think longer next time before undermining those who are well enough informed and outspoken about the problem. Or not... no disrespect - it's just depressing enough to deal with the US bureaucracy without being scolded in the bargain :-)
(republished/edited in the hope of conforming with Chris's Sensitivity Training) :-)
UAV's are the tool of gentle nations to /minimize/ civilian casualties; the question appears to be whether or not this same tool could also be used to /maximize/ civilian casualties. It would appear to be dismissable on its face.
As others have noted, UAV's are not optimized for the grossly crude goals of terrorism, as they are optimized for the alternative goal of highly selective activity.
Only in a world in which "terrorists" are an imaginary enemy whose motivations, and strategies can be invented by the storyteller - and let's not pretend that many in the Military-Industrial complex are not guilty of indulging in an self-serving terror narrative - Only in such a world can you imagine a terrorist using the military equivalent of a laser scalpel. An evolutionary view of terrorism would suggest that the specific actions which get the most attention will be the actions most likely to be repeated - History shows clearly that collateral damage is a critical component of attracting attention. For example, look at how old-school attacking the USS Cole seems by today's terrorism standards.
I'd say one could only hope that ones enemy was sufficiently gentile as to abandon mass civilian casualties for targeted actions with specific military value. That after all is the definition of a good war. We ought to welcome such a change in tactics as ethical progress.
I'm with george on this.
The purpose of the "War on Terror" would appear to convert religious hatred into cash for the Military-Industrial complex. I'm quite confident that the MIC is capable of painting any threat as "the biggest threat to the Christian World as we know it"; after the fall of the "godless commies", it was natural that the "radical islamists" were to be next most delicious enemy to drive defense funding - and the evidence is that the US attacked Iraq - having no connection to 9/11.
The real threat to the US, is currently its weakening scientific position and the corruption of its Financial systems; America has almost no problems left which are best solved by its military. - particularly compared with the rate at which other countries are producing science and math talent - a situation we are making worse rather than better by pushing UAV research out of the country. I mean South Africa is a better place to research future flight than the country which first birth to Wilbur and Orville Wright. That is the casualty of terrorism, and the terrorist must take no small measure of satisfaction, as they see the US losing ground as a consequence of their misdirected response to a pseudo-threat.
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.
80+ lines of text above could be= 150+ line of AP/IMU code
and surely Jordi & other coders/debuggers would appreciate such help , wish I could help with some coding. :)
BTW I was impressed with one of OSD recently. downloaded and tried to read the spanglish manual , felt so sorry that some day soon , I will try to translate it to some thing better that ppl like me can make some sense out of the manual. No Pun or disrespect intended but I am sure our energy & time could be better spent than debating on non AP hardware/software related R & D .
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.
IMHO, Why add fuel to fire now? Have enough hinderance and opposition from faa , aaf, abcd and who knows who else, but we all know the available tech in public forum is still far from presision targeting solution required for Mr. T's intentions, futher more other simple and almost zero failure tech is availble to them which we see/hear every now and then. So pls, lets move on, however keeping periferal vision open.
Comments
"I'm sure our time could be better spent on coding"
Sadly, Morli, most of us live in countries which have outlawed writing code. It is safe to say that most of the people in this forum live in reasonable fear of being arrested and jailed or fined millions of dollars for having built microcomputer projects. Even the simplest RGB Color led board (which is driven by a 50 cent microcontroller) violates federal law the moment it is shipped, or powered up - unless it has been tested and preapproved by the FCC. You are saying, we should just ignore the fact that the government is constantly threatening to squelch the means by which we make our living. We should be happy that a few engineers at boeing are well enough connected to participate in the new economy, and the rest of us should be willing to dicker around so long as we don't have the temerity to try to make a living engaged in an intellectual pursuit?
How should we live (subsistence farming) (get a "real job"). If you aren't aware of the degree to which the US is beating down innovation - then you are invited to become more informed; in the meantime, you might think longer next time before undermining those who are well enough informed and outspoken about the problem. Or not... no disrespect - it's just depressing enough to deal with the US bureaucracy without being scolded in the bargain :-)
UAV's are the tool of gentle nations to /minimize/ civilian casualties; the question appears to be whether or not this same tool could also be used to /maximize/ civilian casualties. It would appear to be dismissable on its face.
As others have noted, UAV's are not optimized for the grossly crude goals of terrorism, as they are optimized for the alternative goal of highly selective activity.
Only in a world in which "terrorists" are an imaginary enemy whose motivations, and strategies can be invented by the storyteller - and let's not pretend that many in the Military-Industrial complex are not guilty of indulging in an self-serving terror narrative - Only in such a world can you imagine a terrorist using the military equivalent of a laser scalpel. An evolutionary view of terrorism would suggest that the specific actions which get the most attention will be the actions most likely to be repeated - History shows clearly that collateral damage is a critical component of attracting attention. For example, look at how old-school attacking the USS Cole seems by today's terrorism standards.
I'd say one could only hope that ones enemy was sufficiently gentile as to abandon mass civilian casualties for targeted actions with specific military value. That after all is the definition of a good war. We ought to welcome such a change in tactics as ethical progress.
I'm with george on this.
The purpose of the "War on Terror" would appear to convert religious hatred into cash for the Military-Industrial complex. I'm quite confident that the MIC is capable of painting any threat as "the biggest threat to the Christian World as we know it"; after the fall of the "godless commies", it was natural that the "radical islamists" were to be next most delicious enemy to drive defense funding - and the evidence is that the US attacked Iraq - having no connection to 9/11.
The real threat to the US, is currently its weakening scientific position and the corruption of its Financial systems; America has almost no problems left which are best solved by its military. - particularly compared with the rate at which other countries are producing science and math talent - a situation we are making worse rather than better by pushing UAV research out of the country. I mean South Africa is a better place to research future flight than the country which first birth to Wilbur and Orville Wright. That is the casualty of terrorism, and the terrorist must take no small measure of satisfaction, as they see the US losing ground as a consequence of their misdirected response to a pseudo-threat.
and surely Jordi & other coders/debuggers would appreciate such help , wish I could help with some coding. :)
BTW I was impressed with one of OSD recently. downloaded and tried to read the spanglish manual , felt so sorry that some day soon , I will try to translate it to some thing better that ppl like me can make some sense out of the manual. No Pun or disrespect intended but I am sure our energy & time could be better spent than debating on non AP hardware/software related R & D .
When people can fly airliners into buildings without hindrance - I dont think an amateur UAV is a major threat...
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next