Hey tinfoil hatters, we'll never see armed drones used in America. NEVER!!!

[intaglio]

46. You are mainly talking about active scanning

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!