General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHey tinfoil hatters, we'll never see armed drones used in America. NEVER!!!
#!
- taken from http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=728891 and re-posted here as a wake-up call to everyone who thinks armed drones can't happen here.
The FAA's block on armed drones is just a technicality. All they need to do is flip the switch on their "block" and it's seriously on, America.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Yup yup.
Ian David
(69,059 posts)
MagickMuffin
(15,933 posts)This Texan is an American.
Ian David
(69,059 posts)There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. As the Watchbirds are unleashed domestically, the airborne bots begin to attack the wrong people.
http://science.discovery.com/videos/stephen-hawkings-sci-fi-masters-watching-the-watchbirds.html
DJ13
(23,671 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)It's only a matter of time before our skies are swarming with the things.
Meiko
(1,076 posts)the current batch of drones are nothing more than glorified RC aircraft, they will evolve. As it is right now I doubt many of these devices is capable of carrying much of a destructive load but things never stay the same. I am not a tin foil hatter by any stretch, all I am saying is that law enforcement needs to be kept a close eye on. They have already shown repeatedly how willing they are to accept military training, tactics and equipment and these drones will be no different. We really cannot afford to have law enforcement anymore militarized then they are right now.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)the problem is that people think the drones in America can't carry those payloads.
This is solved simply by taking some combat zone drones for use in America.
Meiko
(1,076 posts)but the cost of operating a full scale winged drone is way beyond the budget of most police agencies, unless the military somehow gets involved and then you are going to hear a few groups like the ACLU screaming about it. We actually have some pretty high tech stuff flying around right now, what in the hell do we need more for?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)The MIC could sell it to LEOs at below cost and make up the difference some other way.
Meiko
(1,076 posts)The fact is that there could be drones flying all over the US right now and nobody would know it. The very high tech military models fly at very high altitude, are very quiet and have extremely long loiter times. If one crashed the feds would just claim it was a training accident, you know the story.
sad sally
(2,627 posts)of surplus ones. Just like much of the other surplus military hardware it will end up in our local law enforcement's equipment. And lots of them are capable of strapping on mace, rubber bullets, missiles - most any kind of "weapon" needed against the unruly, er potential terrorists.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=319598
BiggJawn
(23,051 posts)Not when it comes to "Fightin' TERRA" they don't.
I think I may just take up sporting clays...
Meiko
(1,076 posts)the distinction between the small RC drones being proposed for use by LE and the full size kick your ass drones used by the military, there is a major difference between a remote camera platform and a huge winged remote aircraft that carries hellfire missiles. To my knowledge there is no proposal to fly the larger winged drones around the US skies, you wouldn't know if they were there anyway.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And watch while they violate all the laws against privacy...and do what...call the cops on them?
If the people that make the law...the politicians... do nothing we can watch till they shoot us down in cold blood....and neither party will touch this subject except in superficial ways.
Meiko
(1,076 posts)be to concerned about them being armed. I would be more concerned with the far more intrusive devices that can be carried, like infrared and ultra sensitive listening devices, and as I stated we need to keep an eye on this and see what direction it is heading. Just remember that not one police agency local or federal has ever asked permission from us before obtaining state of the art equipment. We need to get in the ass of a few congressman and tell them to stop funding this crap. Can you say War on Drugs?
2on2u
(1,843 posts)be much harder to shoot your friend in the face.
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)Sorry 'bout your house. Won't happen again.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)It's not like the police departments are out of control with tasers, pepper spray, tank purchases, etc.
Meiko
(1,076 posts)agencies have become standing armies within our own borders, in addition they are being used in military style operations in other countries.
gateley
(62,683 posts)gateley
(62,683 posts)weird aerial thingsand nobody knew what they were. I assumed they were fake photos but couldn't figure out WHY someone would fake photos of "craft" that nobody could figure out what the hell it was.
Now we know.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts) 
intaglio
(8,170 posts)That "Scary-word Drones" (TM) remain under the oversight of the FAA ...
But the rules might change in future - just as they could by Presidential fiat or legislation ...
Like normal.
But no "Scary-word Drones" (TM) should be allowed at all for things like:
Pollution monitoring;
Emergency communications;
Traffic management;
Animal census and tracking;
Checking for illegal logging and other environmental services;
Search services for the Coastguard;
Search services for Sheriffs Depts;
Fine ... now what is your opinion about this new fangled "Electrickery" stuff?
satellites and helicopters do most of the work now. The natural progression of technology would dictate that small unmanned vehicles would take over some of the jobs older equipment does now. I don't think all the items on your list apply but your point is well taken.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Satellites provide wide area scans and are pretty useless for the 1 meter resolution you need for the most of the jobs I mentioned. Some satellites can do 1 m resolution but they are rare and usually used by security agencies - they remain pretty much useless when there is cloud cover.
Helicopters can do the work as can light aircraft but they are horribly expensive both for purchase and in operation. This restricts them to being used in reaction to events - not to detect them. They and some aircraft are used for things like reflection IR scanning for illegal crops (do not grow hemp, for fibre of course, without a good overhead screen and accept the loss of yield). Additionally you cannot have manned aircraft of any sort working too close together and with fewer for an area your detection ability goes down rapidly. Drones can be programmed for such close coordination flying. Remember also that not all "drones" are large and could be operated from small vans or boats.
Meiko
(1,076 posts)For myself I am not totally opposed to the use of drones. The only problem I have is not having any control over their use and what gets loaded on them. We must know that there are LE agencies out there already salivating trying to figure out how to mount machine guns, grenade launchers and tear gas dispensers on these little wonders of technology. There has to be federal oversight as to what will be acceptable. Putting the TSA,NSA or some other security agency in charge of them will not hack it, we need direct congressional oversight. As a free people we must have some say into what is allowed to be flying around our heads.
I'll just throw in that cloud cover hasn't been a real problem for satelllites since we started using non-visible spectrum to build imagery some (40?) years ago. Remember early night-vision goggles worked using heat. TerraSAR-X takes 2.9m imagery with a bone-simple radar emitter, LiDAR is cool... clouds, schmouds, really.
A satellite's greatest drawback remains its inflexibility, though.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Which is fine for topological features but often what you are interested in is emission and reflection spectra, primarily in the visible and near infra-red range. UV spectrum can get through some cloud but even then it gets diffused and active scan devices use long wavelengths.
Synthetic aperture active scans are those that produce the fine detail seen in some satellite shots, but 2.9 m resolution is not really that good compared to optical shots from, say, 2,000 feet. Sure, active scanning it is fine for spotting vehicles on unusual routes but a man in the water? Or a wrinkly rocker bow hunting bear illegally? Not so good.
In theory LIDAR or it's relatives might be able to spot illegal logging that has occurred in the past but in practise it relies on comparison of near identical shots of the same area and that takes time; it's also likely to produce many false positives (when a tree falls in the forest is it logging or nature or a Tunguska type airburst?). With real time observation satellites are not always in the right position so although a Forest Ranger can hear the distant chainsaw he cannot get real time imaging.
Essentially drones are more responsive, adaptable and cheaper - well, unless you fit hellfire missiles to them ... JOKE!
2on2u
(1,843 posts)2on2u
(1,843 posts)Morpheus would approve.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100519144202AAnDz8Y
You will have to design your own, because no plans are available on the internet. You need a high voltage capacitor, a spark gap, and an antenna. Charge the cap up to a few kV, then discharge it into the antenna via a spark gap. The antenna should have a zero resistance to DC, I would suggest a folded dipole. The cap should store about 1 kilojoule for the range you are talking about. You can find them surplus, or Maxwell labs make them.
You need a 12V powered high voltage supply to charge it. These are readily available on ebay, or Vicor make them.
If it works, why not publish detailed plans on the internet for the next guy to use?
The spark gap you can probably make yourself. They are commercially available, known as cold cathode thyrotrons or Kytrons.
These kind of parts are dangerous and expensive, and there may be some operating permit issues for the completed device.
P.S. The source purports to sell complete plans ready to go, but I would be very leery about whether they actaully work. Caveat emptor!
Source(s):
http://www.surplussales.com/Capacitors/M…
http://www.amazing1.com/emp.htm
intaglio
(8,170 posts)you will deserve every hour in prison that you get.
EMP burst - but there is a light aircraft flying out of your site that you take down.
EMP burst and the airliner at 20,000 feet falls out of the sky.
EMP burst and the guy with a defib. or an insulin pump or a pacemaker dies.
EMP burst and the engine management system on private cars go down - perhaps whilst negotiating a trick bend.
EMP burst and GPS, cellphone, mobile data services go down.
EMP burst and a small miscalculation sees you blow out the electricity grid
Did I say stupid? Try irresponsibly criminal
2on2u
(1,843 posts)Chinese.
ON EDIT TO ADD: Why you mad???
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/21/beijing-develops-radiation-weapons/?page=all
China's military is developing electromagnetic pulse weapons that Beijing plans to use against U.S. aircraft carriers in any future conflict over Taiwan, according to an intelligence report made public on Thursday.
Portions of a National Ground Intelligence Centerstudy on the lethal effects of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and high-powered microwave (HPM) weapons revealed that the arms are part of China’s so-called “assassin’s mace” arsenal - weapons that allow a technologically inferior China to defeat U.S. military forces.
EMP weapons mimic the gamma-ray pulse caused by a nuclear blast that knocks out all electronics, including computers and automobiles, over wide areas. The phenomenon was discovered in 1962 after an aboveground nuclear test in the Pacific disabled electronics in Hawaii.
The declassified intelligence report, obtained by the private National Security Archive, provides details on China’s EMP weapons and plans for their use. Annual Pentagon reports on China's military in the past made only passing references to the arms.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)All governments with a good research arm have investigated them - US included. The problem is that you cannot target them effectively or harden your own equipment against them, which is why they are not produced.
And you are well aware that I was talking about private individuals building them. Using your logic private individuals would be allowed to build nuclear weapons.
Also find a report with more scientific awareness than an apricot.
Yeh, right.
2on2u
(1,843 posts)Ho Ho's. The third one is probably the most deadly. I still say that having your own focusable/directional EMP device would be a plus.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)They can kill bystanders and you are advocating their use. This is criminal irresponsibility.
Feel free to provide false justifications for what you propose.
2on2u
(1,843 posts)at me. I give it a swig of emf. It falls to the ground. Everyone wins!!
intaglio
(8,170 posts)or the farm that gets power loss because of the power surge
or the other aircraft you didn't see
or ...
Criminally irresponsible
And the whole point is they are not going to be armed with Hellfires they are going to be regulated
2on2u
(1,843 posts)like an immigrant.... ya never know. Maybe I'll just wear my tinfoil hat and consider myself safe.
2on2u
(1,843 posts)care, civilians shouldn't get in my way, my video screen was blurry that day. Fa la la la la, la la la la.
MineralMan
(146,281 posts)If small-scale EMP devices could actually be built and actually work, the military would actually be using them.
The problem is that what you describe won't work. It's tinfoil hattery.
2on2u
(1,843 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Except it would be. And the dead can't sue.
MineralMan
(146,281 posts)The little bug at the bottom left says so. Apparently, nobody wants armed drones.
cstanleytech
(26,273 posts)inside the US.
MineralMan
(146,281 posts)The right is almost always against government surveillance and the like, unless they're the ones doing it, of course. There's a strong libertarian element on the right that doesn't like anything the government does. There's some of that on the left, too.
Most people look at stories like these surveillance drone stories and shrug. The level of concern is low, I think, for most people.
cstanleytech
(26,273 posts)"The right is almost always against government surveillance and the like, unless they're the ones doing it"
Thats what I just said, if he was a Republican they (fox news) probably would be pro drones but since he is a dem they cant be pro drone now and will use it as a weapon against him and any other president as long as said president is a democrat, soon as the president is a republican they will suddenly change their tune and support the drones.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)can make you see into the future, but they make you look so ridiculous, no one will believe you. 
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)I'm sure the footage these babies could grab would make a GREAT TALENT SHOW/REALITY PROGRAM!!!
Hey! Not to worry folks. I'm sure the gubbmint is just looking out for our safety and we can rest assured that as long as we don't make too much of a fuss about it and keep our voices down, ''THEY'' won't put any guns or Hellfire missiles on them. Probably. And even if they did, I'm relatively sure we've got a backup plan like say.... Skynet. Yeah! Skynet would most likely stop the miscreants. Because then it'd be doing it's job, see?
- And besides I ask you, whose gonna save us from all those TEEN TERRORISTS out there, hmmmm???
K&R
