Who says it will be a military drone?
Posted on 03/11/2013 6:02:58 AM PDT by expat1000
Points taken. I did not claim that drones are more advantageous that traditional wetwork operations, only that they have their own advantages which will become stronger over time. Of the methods you posit both are stealthy. The umbrella is both stealthy and deniable, while the car bomb will require significant post-op effort to acheive deniablity. I am not so sure about compartmentalization in either case. Both require significant planning: the target’s schedule must be determined, the target’s habits analyzed, the target’s countermeasures defeated. The operations must run over a period of time, and the longer they run the more operatives may become involved and more evidence is produced. As I said elsewhere, with a UAV there need only be two people aware of the target, and they are free to monitor him at their leisure and choose the perfect moment for the kill.
Small-scale operations surely take place as you describe. It does not negate the possiblity that domestic drones have great potential for abuse.
IRS
Should a president wish, all he has to do is claim that his life was threatened by any individual. Thus would begin a multi-year, multi-million dollar ordeal for the citizen. Hey, the citizen might even get convicted.
I disagree.
Daniel Greenfield is frighteningly naive’.
Don’t kid yourself, Conservatives will have their turn soon enough. They are already in the hopper, their turn just hasn’t came up yet.
I’m thinking the feds would more resort to setting a timed IED to kill opponents, since drones are now getting some attention. How difficult would it be to enter a residence, set the device, and after detonation, send in compliant FBI types who will “conclude” it was a criminal act perpetrated by someone at a local level.
1. Drone strikes only involve the target's life: the shooter is not risked. If the government is actually considering using these things against us (remember that they said that they would only use these on American citizens "in combat". Waco comes to mind as "combat" in their view).
2. The target is reachable anywhere - in their homes, on the road, on vacation, etc.
3. The attack is nearly always a surprise - another advantage for the shooter. Similar to a sniper attack but with even less risk.
4. There is virtually no defense against a drone attack. If they know where you are or even suspect it, you're hit. Hitting a drone first is almost impossible. While I was still on active duty, we had drone targets for our .50 caliber machingunners. Despite thousands of rounds fired and a lot of sincere application, none of the targets were ever hit.
This is the first generation of anonymous warfare. This is only the beginning.
Exactly how does your post — which has also shown up verbitum on other threads — relate to this story?
verbitum=verbatim
Who says it will be a military drone?
“Surveillance drones are going to be used extensively at home, and that is a serious issue, but armed drones are not likely to be because the United States is not hostile territory.”
Ha! We shall see.
This video might have been around for awhile but I first seen it a few days ago. It’s Quantico from 17,000 feet and it’s called ARGUS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13BahrdkMU8&feature=player_embedded
Interesting that you fired M2s against drone targets. No hits obtained is not surprising. It is very tough to hit a point with a point. (My dad's unit had a 100% kill ratio against drones, but they were lobbing Nike Hercules's at 1960's era RCATs, not .50 ball at stealth Predators. I did get a nice drone propellor out of the deal.) If I wanted to fight a drone, I'd get one of these. It's not much, but it has more chance of hitting than a rifle.
Please put me on your PING List for Dan Greenfield.
Welcome to the Sultan Knish/Daniel Greenfield ping list!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.