Posted on 05/02/2025 7:25:59 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Citing the hundreds of drones that flew around military sites last year, defense officials warn that the Pentagon is still unprepared to defend its installations—but say a new standard operating procedure, and expanded authorities, could help.
“Mass drone incursions over Joint Base Langley-Eustis in December 2023 reminded us that the homeland is no longer a sanctuary, and should our adversary choose to employ drones for surveillance or even attack, we would not be prepared to adequately defend our homeland and only marginally capable to defend our military installations,” Rear Adm. Paul Spedero, vice director for operations for the Joint Staff, said Tuesday during a House oversight subcommittee on military and foreign affairs hearing.
The mysterious drone swarms over Langley Air Force Base in Virginia in 2023 raised questions about when base commanders can legally take down drones, and how the military should coordinate with the various agencies that oversee U.S. airspace.
In addition to Langley, Spedero cited drone incursions at Plant 42 in California and Picatinny Arsenal and Naval Weapons Station Earle in New Jersey. The Pentagon reported 350 drone detected last year over 100 different military installations—a number that continues to rise, Spedero said.
...
Rep. William Timmons, R-S.C., the chairman of the subcommittee, called the drone incursions “a coordinated effort by our adversaries to collect valuable intelligence and surveillance of some of our most sensitive military equipment.”
While Spedero stopped short of naming specific instances of adversarial spying, he agreed that U.S. adversaries have “demonstrated that they will use this type of activity, for unauthorized surveillance, for espionage.”
Part of the Pentagon’s struggle to respond to these incidents lies in “challenges” with “our ability to implement a relatively untested interagency coordination process,” Mark Ditlevson, acting assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense and hemispheric affairs, said [during hearing].
(Excerpt) Read more at defenseone.com ...
All the uncle needed to say is something like:
“You watch Star Trek and Star Wars, right. It is true.”
For that you want to declare him a traitor?
Lol.
Where did you get that? That's not intellectually honest, is it?
My view—to be very clear—is that the young President Trump was given very general information about the existence of NHI and .gov involvement with it.
It would not be actionable intelligence.
There would be no details—no proof—not even any real evidence.
But—it would be enough so today’s President Trump knows—and knew who to talk to (over the years) if he needed to get more details.
Those folks today would be telling him why they believed disclosure was a bad idea—and btw there are some reasonable arguments for that view (even if I may disagree with them).
President Trump 1.0 would have already had to deal with this issue.
We had no real .gov disclosure then—I see no basis for claiming there has been a change in the President’s view on this topic.
Drones? They can’t even stop huge “weather” balloons!
You said Trump’s uncle would be violating his national security oath if he gave away confidential information.
My view is that while making general representations to this nephew may technically violate that oath he would have given away no actionable intelligence.
His uncle might have told him something about this subject or he might not have. He died in 1985 and we don't even know if he and Donald had a close relationship.
It's ridiculous to draw conclusions without a shred of evidence, based solely on what you think such a person might have done.
Who are they kidding? The Pentagon isn't prepared for any kind of attack.
At best, they can lie and cover up afterwards. "The individuals were on our radar."
I didn't say that. I said that if he shared classified information with someone and it got out, it might reflect negatively on himself and people and institutions he cared about.
I don't know if he spoke with Donald about this or not. I'm saying that there are good reason he might not have done so.
OK—so lets take a close look at what we know about the relationship between President Trump and his uncle:
“He was a great expert. He was a great, brilliant genius. Dr John Trump at MIT.
“I think he was there 40 years, I was told. In fact, the head of MIT sent me a book on my uncle. But we used to talk about nuclear.
“You’re talking about a very complex subject.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44457471
“He was a very smart guy.”
“I think it was a military contractor “testing” our defenses for vulnerabilities and they are telling us half truths. They were learning what adversaries “could/might do” not “what they did do”.
Correct. The drone operators exposed vulnerabilities at our bases.
And what if Trump has said, "I had a very famous uncle, he knew all kinds of things. He told me once that we were being visited by aliens from outer space or something like that."
"He might have been pulling my leg, but that's what he told me before he died."
Maybe his uncle told him, maybe he did.
As I said, you are drawing conclusion out of thin air.
I may be guilty of some speculation—and it does require putting together a few pieces and making a few inferences—but I believe they are reasonable ones.
If you follow the UAP data we are learning from Jesse Michael and UAPGerb it has become clear that the “atomic scientists” and MIT folks associated with the “Radlab” were critical in studying and working on reverse engineering NHI craft. That was at least partially because they had already received very high clearances in the nuclear weapons development program. Professor Trump was involved in all of those efforts.
Then we have the question on whether Professor Trump shared any information—even the most general sort—with his nephew.
I cannot prove that he did—but I think it is a reasonable inference. There is a pattern where “nuclear” is code for “NHI”—since both were covered under various Atomic Secrets Acts and similar players worked on both programs.
““a coordinated effort by our adversaries to collect valuable intelligence and surveillance of some of our most sensitive military equipment.”
They need to prove it or sit down and shut up.”
I’m with you there. My theory is it was the Generals themselves, looking to put a scare and increase funding. That’s why they were so Laissez-faire about the whole thing. Nothing to worry about but fear itself.
“Who are they kidding? The Pentagon isn’t prepared for any kind of attack. “
I think they are expecting those Laurels they are resting on will act as both Sword and Shield. Plus their technology is so advanced no enemy would dare.
Lol, now you know why I try very hard to debunk them first... :)
He is purposely trying to make folks like us look like fools by making himself (the expert) look like a fool.
More psyops cover up/diversion.
“He is purposely trying to make folks like us look like fools by making himself (the expert) look like a fool.”
Well stated!
I’m with you, this guy’s credibility is now completely shot. We now know he is out to discredit the whole concept and make it look foolish to cover it up. Even if he has to sacrifice himself to do it.
Time to yell “get off the stage and go away” every time his name comes up. :)
No, they merely said "They do not belong to an enemy".
The administration said the drones were FAA approved.
I would bet that was news to the FAA.
Lol.
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.