4 ms·

Wouldn't be surprised if this was being done by one of the U.S. defence contractors so that they can convince politicians to buy their anti-drone products. Wha

Wouldn't be surprised if this was being done by one of the U.S. defence contractors so that they can convince politicians to buy their anti-drone products. What's most disappointing about this article is it has no actual details. What size drones? How fast were they going? How many total? How many at a single time? Did they catch any? What models? Let's see a photo of one... and so on...

jkhanlar 3y ago
or using hedgefunds infinte ftd failure to deliver assets as collateral to deploy such an operation that is not as traceable/trackable. where's Jonathan Frakes? https://youtu.be/GM-e46xdcUo https://youtu.be/GM-e46xdcUo
dralley 3y ago
There's absolutely no need to stage an incident to convince anyone of the need for anti-drone products. The utilitarianism of drones employed en-masse, cheaply and without deep technical knowledge on both sides in Ukraine proves that point just fine.
signatoremo 3y ago
> Wouldn't be surprised if this was being done by one of the U.S. defence contractors so that they can convince politicians to buy their anti-drone products. No way they could do that without the military’s knowledge. That can have serious consequence. Anti drone is a hot area that the US is very interested in. All a vendor needs to do is to ask nicely. > What's most disappointing about this article is it has no actual details. That’s because the US military was intentionally ambiguous about their anti-drone capabilities: "To protect operational security, we do not discuss impacts to operations," the statement added. "We don’t discuss our specific force protection measures but retain the right to protect the installation …”
thegrim000 3y ago
Ah yes, a white collar CEO at a private US company just decided one day that his company was going to start committing felonies and sending swarms of drones to accost a US military installation. And the CEO ordered everyone involved to be somehow threatened into complete silence about the operation. That's totally something that would happen in the real world and not a deranged conspiracy theory.
- GolfPopper 3y ago
  >a white collar CEO at a private US company just decided one day that his company was going to start committing felonies This part seems pretty normal, actually.
  - dexwiz 3y ago
    There’s business fraud and then there’s attacking military installations. The two carry very different penalties.
    - shiroiushi 3y ago
      That's true, but lately it seems like at least one of the most well-known CEOs is really a fruitcake, so this difference in penalties might not matter that much.
      - dexwiz 3y ago
        There’s always fruitcake CEOs. Having crazies at the top isn’t a modern issue.
throwawaymaths 3y ago
If you had connections to be a defense contractor, you would just red team it with at least a relatively high level military official on the inside.
boffinAudio 3y ago
Nothing in this article supports the idea that these are man-made drones.

jkhanlar 3y ago

or using hedgefunds infinte ftd failure to deliver assets as collateral to deploy such an operation that is not as traceable/trackable. where's Jonathan Frakes? https://youtu.be/GM-e46xdcUo https://youtu.be/GM-e46xdcUo

dralley 3y ago

There's absolutely no need to stage an incident to convince anyone of the need for anti-drone products. The utilitarianism of drones employed en-masse, cheaply and without deep technical knowledge on both sides in Ukraine proves that point just fine.

signatoremo 3y ago

> Wouldn't be surprised if this was being done by one of the U.S. defence contractors so that they can convince politicians to buy their anti-drone products. No way they could do that without the military’s knowledge. That can have serious consequence. Anti drone is a hot area that the US is very interested in. All a vendor needs to do is to ask nicely. > What's most disappointing about this article is it has no actual details. That’s because the US military was intentionally ambiguous about their anti-drone capabilities: "To protect operational security, we do not discuss impacts to operations," the statement added. "We don’t discuss our specific force protection measures but retain the right to protect the installation …”

thegrim000 3y ago

Ah yes, a white collar CEO at a private US company just decided one day that his company was going to start committing felonies and sending swarms of drones to accost a US military installation. And the CEO ordered everyone involved to be somehow threatened into complete silence about the operation. That's totally something that would happen in the real world and not a deranged conspiracy theory.

GolfPopper 3y ago
>a white collar CEO at a private US company just decided one day that his company was going to start committing felonies This part seems pretty normal, actually.
- dexwiz 3y ago
  There’s business fraud and then there’s attacking military installations. The two carry very different penalties.
  - shiroiushi 3y ago
    That's true, but lately it seems like at least one of the most well-known CEOs is really a fruitcake, so this difference in penalties might not matter that much.
    - dexwiz 3y ago
      There’s always fruitcake CEOs. Having crazies at the top isn’t a modern issue.

throwawaymaths 3y ago

If you had connections to be a defense contractor, you would just red team it with at least a relatively high level military official on the inside.

boffinAudio 3y ago

Nothing in this article supports the idea that these are man-made drones.