Fox News alert: US fears Iraq has transported GPS guided drones to America

Fox News Channel | 02/24/03 | Brett Baird

[Pokey78]

Drones or pieces of drones that have GPS mapping may have been sent to Iraqi agants in US to spray chem or bio weapons over US cities.

[Atlas Sneezed]

I assume that Tom Ridge will be encouraging all citizens to keep rifles in their vehicles, so that when a drone alert goes out, we have adequate firepower to shoot it down.

[Amerigomag]

Tougher is finding a UAV with a payload big enough to handle both the fuel and the agent here in the US

If you knew that the "fuel" is 6 to 8 lithium polymer batteries (cell phone batteries) and the "payload" is a 12 to 24 oz. aerosol can, the problem becomes a bit simpler to resolve.

Don't you think?

[MissAmericanPie]

This was a thread on FR back in Sept 2002 by a very on top of things Freeper, "Drones hint at Iraq weapons delivery - Pilotless planes could release toxic payloads". It's a very informative read.

I would think the smart move would be to jack knife a couple of semi's on a busy freeway and spray the traffic jam right down the line, then get out of the way and let everyone take the Small Pox, or whatever, home to their families.

I know if I get caught out on the freeway like that, home is the last place I will go.

[narby]

Get ready for the return to GPS "Selective Availability".

SA only puts a 100 foot or so "noise" on the location (while commercial "differential" broadcasters can "fix" it to within 3 feet). Who cares if they miss their target by 100 ft with Anthrax.

[crazykatz]

LOL!!

[snopercod]

I think our fedgov had totally lost all contact with reality. Duct tape, plastic sheeting, now this...

If the terrorists wanted to spread stuff, they could buy a spray rig at the local hardware store and drive around NYC in a rental car.

[Archangelsk]

They'd better not. :-)

[George W. Bush]

You made the first technically sensible comments.

I have myself done much of the design work to use a BasicX microcontroller ($50) with a multitasking OS in combination with a surplus Motorola Jupiter GPS receiver ($60 or less, serial interface) and mount them on a large Zagi design.

The Zagi would be one of the big models, 6-10 feet wingspan in molded hardened foam. Such a beast would be very stable and, left unpainted, virtually invisible to radar, partly because of its irregular shape and flying wing design. In warm weather when thermals are favorable, it could have a very long range. Attacking a southern city would maximize your range.

Importing the items would not be needed. You could buy the oversized Zagi aircraft kits here in the U.S.

If you look around the web, you'll see that model aircraft enthusiasts have already built exactly these types of GPS guided computer-controlled planes, some complete with remote cameras on servo-controlled servo-mounts. I've read a number of accounts of people who launch planes that fly a predetermined route at a specified height using GPS and then return to land at the designated point.

These are 8' Zagis:

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

This makes me mad. I fly R/C airplanes, lately distance records have been set by using a GPS system in a model flown overseas. They take off manualy climb to a hundred feet or so, point it in the general direction then switch it to GPS. I then climbs to the preset altitude and changes direction to fly to the first waypoint. Now the American Modelers Association (AMA) are in talks with the FAA and aparently the AMA are willing to hand over our rights to own and use such models to the USA! Not that I want one, but someday I might want to set a record or two.

[znix]

What weapon allowed the Atta gang to hijack 757s? Box cutters.
And they took over those planes with what? C'mon, say it with me: box cutters.

And they'll assemble these drones with what? screwdrivers?

but let's be realistic here and not oversimplify this thing.

I'm not the one guilty of oversimplifying here.saying that boxcutters destroyed the WTC is absurd. If we want to discuss how those weapons (the planes) were procured, fine I'll give you that.

[TheLurkerX]

that's not true. France's missiles are high speed and very, very accurate. You just have to remember to aim them 180 from your target.

[GOPJ]

You probably guessed the way they'll really do it. Saddam knows a person cost less than a drone and besides money is needed to build more palaces. He'll tell the poor sap that Allah wants him to do it. What a creepy people.

Why would they need expensive, complex drones? Just have Iraqi agents get jobs as janitors in every tall building in America, take a bottle of soap (weaponized anthrax) to the roof on the day the American attack starts, and shake it over the side. Millions dead with little risk.

[mhking]

Attacking a southern city would maximize your range.

Gee, thanks. (sitting in a high-rise in suburban Atlanta)

[6ppc]

By George I think he's got it!

[Salvation]

BTTT for more information.

[duk]

Anthrax could be deployed with a small inhaler device within an aircraft, apartment, business 0ffice or indoor sporting event. To spend all this time and effort for a drone with GPS would be foolish.

The article in LA times about a small aircraft delivering anthrax would be a real threat as opposed to a sophisticated unmanned vehicle.

[MattAMiller]

I really don't know what I think about all this. This is a pretty wild tale and it's going to take more than a single leaked comment to make me believe it. I hope we don't have high level people passing lies onto the media to keep people scared. It's just not necessary to operate that way and eventually it harms the War on Terror.

[mhking]

From FoxNews.com:

Iraqi Drones May Target U.S. Cities

Monday, February 24, 2003

WASHINGTON — Iraq could be planning a chemical or biological attack on American cities through the use of remote-controlled "drone" planes equipped with GPS tracking maps, according to U.S. intelligence.

The information about Iraq's unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program has caused a "real concern" among defense personnel, senior U.S. officials tell Fox News. They're worried that these vehicles have already been, or could be, transported inside the United States to be used in an attack, although there is no proof that this has happened.

Secretary of State Colin Powell showed a picture of a small drone plane during his presentation to the U.N. Security Council earlier this month.

"UAVs outfitted with spray tanks constitute an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons," Powell said during his speech. "Iraq could use these small UAVs, which have a wingspan of only a few meters, to deliver biological agents to its neighbors or, if transported, to other countries, including the United States."

Powell said there is "ample evidence" that Iraq has dedicated much time and effort to developing and testing spray devices that could be adapted for UAVs. "And of the little that Saddam Hussein told us about UAVs, he has not told the truth," Powell said.

In the arms declaration Iraq submitted to the U.N. Security Council in December, the country said its UAVs have a range of only 50 miles. But Powell said U.S. intelligence sources found that one of Iraq's newest UAVs went 310 miles nonstop on autopilot in a test run. That distance is over the 155 miles that the United Nations permits, and the test was left out of Iraq's arms declaration.

Officials tell Fox that there is solid intelligence that Iraq has tested many different types of sprayers on these drones to disperse chemical and biological weapons.

President Bush addressed the threat in October in Cincinnati, making his first big case outlining Iraq's defiance.

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas," Bush said in preparation for a congressional vote authorizing the use of force against Iraq. "We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."

The president noted, however, that sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack. "All that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it," he said.

Even though it has been mentioned a few times by administration officials, the issue of UAVs and their capabilities has been largely overlooked.

But some experts say that even if the UAVs do get assembled for use in the United States, the chances that they could cause widespread damage are low.

"These technologies are not terribly well proven," F. Whitten Peters, a former Air Force Secretary, told Fox News, referring to vehicles that can be used to disperse harmful agents.

Peters said in order to go undetected in the air, the UAVs would have to be small -- and therefore would not be able to carry too much of a harmful substance, and they would have to fly over densely populated areas if they want to achieve maximum casualties.

But because many large metropolitan areas such as Washington have air traffic watchers keeping an eye out for any nearby planes that have not filed a flight plan, the UAVs likely would not succeed in a large-city attack.

It's the smaller cities and towns that would be more vulnerable.

"It's not clear air traffic would actually see this aircraft," Peters said, adding that if the vehicles flew low enough to evade radar detection, "they would be basically invisible."

As to what the government could do to protect Americans from any threat UAVs may pose, Peters said: "I don't think there's much to be done besides the steps we're already taking to deal with chemical and biological threats."

[Space Wrangler]

There's ALOT more to it than that. Chem/Bio weapons delivery has always been the sticking point to making them a useful weapon. Just dumping a garbage bag full of the stuff won't be very useful, other than just the terror aspect of it. Chem/bio agents disperse and dilute rather quickly, which has always been a roadblock to their being an effective alternative to nukes. Why do you think al_queda, Iraq, etc. are always looking for nukes? Because they work better, and are much more reliable in attaining their desired effect.

[Nexus]

Here's the story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79450,00.html


Monday, February 24, 2003

WASHINGTON — Iraq could be planning a chemical or biological attack on American cities through the use of remote-controlled "drone" planes equipped with GPS tracking maps, according to U.S. intelligence.

The information about Iraq's unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program has caused a "real concern" among defense personnel, senior U.S. officials tell Fox News. They're worried that these vehicles have already been, or could be, transported inside the United States to be used in an attack, although there is no proof that this has happened.

Secretary of State Colin Powell showed a picture of a small drone plane during his presentation to the U.N. Security Council earlier this month.

"UAVs outfitted with spray tanks constitute an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons," Powell said during his speech. "Iraq could use these small UAVs, which have a wingspan of only a few meters, to deliver biological agents to its neighbors or, if transported, to other countries, including the United States."

Powell said there is "ample evidence" that Iraq has dedicated much time and effort to developing and testing spray devices that could be adapted for UAVs. "And of the little that Saddam Hussein told us about UAVs, he has not told the truth," Powell said.

In the arms declaration Iraq submitted to the U.N. Security Council in December, the country said its UAVs have a range of only 50 miles. But Powell said U.S. intelligence sources found that one of Iraq's newest UAVs went 310 miles nonstop on autopilot in a test run. That distance is over the 155 miles that the United Nations permits, and the test was left out of Iraq's arms declaration.

Officials tell Fox that there is solid intelligence that Iraq has tested many different types of sprayers on these drones to disperse chemical and biological weapons.

President Bush addressed the threat in October in Cincinnati, making his first big case outlining Iraq's defiance.

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas," Bush said in preparation for a congressional vote authorizing the use of force against Iraq. "We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."

The president noted, however, that sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack. "All that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it," he said.

Even though it has been mentioned a few times by administration officials, the issue of UAVs and their capabilities has been largely overlooked.

But some experts say that even if the UAVs do get assembled for use in the United States, the chances that they could cause widespread damage are low.

"These technologies are not terribly well proven," F. Whitten Peters, a former Air Force Secretary, told Fox News, referring to vehicles that can be used to disperse harmful agents.

Peters said in order to go undetected in the air, the UAVs would have to be small -- and therefore would not be able to carry too much of a harmful substance, and they would have to fly over densely populated areas if they want to achieve maximum casualties.

But because many large metropolitan areas such as Washington have air traffic watchers keeping an eye out for any nearby planes that have not filed a flight plan, the UAVs likely would not succeed in a large-city attack.

It's the smaller cities and towns that would be more vulnerable.

"It's not clear air traffic would actually see this aircraft," Peters said, adding that if the vehicles flew low enough to evade radar detection, "they would be basically invisible."

As to what the government could do to protect Americans from any threat UAVs may pose, Peters said: "I don't think there's much to be done besides the steps we're already taking to deal with chemical and biological threats."

Fox News' Bret Baier and Liza Porteus contributed to this report.