5 ms·
No, I think you're right. I'm quite sure the "deadly force" wording was for effect, more than any kind of actual change in posture or practice. Unless I'm mist
by JohnBooty 2y ago
No, I think you're right.
I'm quite sure the "deadly force" wording was for effect, more than any kind of actual change in posture or practice. Unless I'm mistaken there are still plenty of drones being seen in NJ and they're not blasting them out of the sky. And they've always had the option of lethal force around bases anyway.
what they assess as—the immediate threat of the drones
None of us know for sure but I think the immediate threat of the drones is negligible. If US bases are leaking signals that can be intercepted by drones overhead then these same signals could be just as easily intercepted by cars driving past the bases or nearby homes. And as far as the visible spectrum is concerned all the major players have satellites overhead anyway.
And as you say, the risks of shooting drones down are high. Damage to nearby property. Accidental shootdowns of innocent craft. Successful shootdowns would reveal our capabilities. Unsuccessful shootdowns would reveal our inability to deal with the threat. And in aggregate this would all give the enemy lots of intel as to where we do and don't have defenses. And open war (!!!) over our skies is, to put it mildly, kind of a big deal. There are, to put it mildly, global economic consequences.
Of course, that's all if these drones are of hostile origin, which I think is still a very open question.
If these drones are "ours," which would be weird but also plausible, then the "deadly force" note in the FAA notice could just be part of the cover story.
- inetknght 2y ago> If US bases are leaking signals that can be intercepted by drones overhead then these same signals could be just as easily intercepted by cars driving past the bases or nearby homes Not really. Some signals can be very much unidirectional (eg, visible only to an overhead drone) instead of omnidirectional (eg, a car).
- idunnoman1222 2y ago[flagged]
- unethical_ban 2y agoRelevant signals are encrypted, too. Metadata could be useful to intercept.
- powersnail 2y agoJust curious; what kind of signals would be uni-directionally beaming upwards? For communicating with aircrafts that directly hover above the base? Wouldn't that be really limiting in terms of usefulness?
- jusssi 2y agoSatellites.
- traverseda 2y agoSatellite base stations
- exe34 2y agoI'm surprised the US doesn't carry bigger drones with butterfly nets.
- dylan604 2y agoBut those drones would have to wear the same uniforms as the Keystone Cops to put it to full effect.
- DonHopkins 2y agoThey could send Spiderman Drones with web slingers! https://www.fun.com/marvel-3-inch-spider-man-flying-figure-ir-helicopter.html?mpid=235317&gQT=1 https://www.fun.com/marvel-3-inch-spider-man-flying-figure-i...
- ethbr1 2y agoIn the US there are also major restrictions to federal US military operating on US soil. [0] Thus, any action (or effectors traveling) outside base boundaries would generally be illegal. Given the mobility of drones and desire to prevent their encroachment on bases in the first place, the appropriately legal unit for this would be non-federalized national guard air defense units, tasked by the state governor to intervene. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- philwelch 2y agoThe Posse Comitatus Act restricts the military from engaging in civil law enforcement. It doesn’t prevent the military from using force to defend US soil or airspace. For instance, on 9/11, fighter jets were scrambled to intercept Flight 93; they just didn’t reach it until the passengers had already forced the plane down.
- ethbr1 2y agoThe 9/11 military airspace defense mission was a mass of confusion, as a consequence of the then-novelty of civilian airliner suicide hijackings and split information between the FAA and NORAD. Hypothetically, the fighters launched could have shot down a civilian plane, but it would have taken direct presidential authorization (i.e. national emergency). In the absence of an immediate threat, that authorization isn't going to happen. Drones in most cases are a civil law enforcement matter. They're not obviously the actors of a foreign nation state, are not an invasion, and are not posing an immediate threat. They are breaking civil aviation laws.
- philwelch 2y agoYou're still vastly overstating the scope of the Posse Comitatus Act. As a matter of policy, the US military is cautious about intercepting hostile aircraft in American airspace[1], but the Posse Comitatus Act doesn't prevent it from doing so. In particular, your claim that "any action (or effectors traveling) outside base boundaries would generally be illegal" is not only false but facially absurd, since it would imply that the US military is statutorily prevented from intercepting enemy bombers or responding to an invasion of American soil. [1] The reasons for which are well discussed here: https://www.navalgazing.net/Thoughts-on-the-Chinese-Balloon https://www.navalgazing.net/Thoughts-on-the-Chinese-Balloon
- kbolino 2y agoDrones can capture much higher resolution images, and from very different angles, than satellites. Both are useful, and neither really replaces the other. A high-res composite image taken from multiple angles and exposures can confirm or refute what was just a hunch from satellite imagery alone.
- Sanzig 2y ago> None of us know for sure but I think the immediate threat of the drones is negligible. If US bases are leaking signals that can be intercepted by drones overhead then these same signals could be just as easily intercepted by cars driving past the bases or nearby homes. And as far as the visible spectrum is concerned all the major players have satellites overhead anyway. You can also do radio frequency signals intercepts from space, too. You need a big antenna on your satellite, but it's essentially a solved problem. Spaceborne SIGINT goes back to at least the early 70s.
- Xylakant 2y agoThe problem with satellites however is that they cannot loiter, so the window in which they can gather data is limited and predictable. They are also essentially fixed on their track - changing orbit requires fuel. Drones (and old-fashioned spy planes) do not suffer from that limitation.
- ok_dad 2y agoTossing a battery-powered radio in a gallon ziplock into the woods outside the chainlink for the base also works, and would have more loitering capability than a drone.
- Xylakant 2y agoClearly. But it would not be overhead and might suffer from shielding by buildings etc.
- ok_dad 2y agoSo throw it in a gallon ziplock inside some rope and stuff and toss into a tree. In any case, a drone has about 15-30 min of loitering time while a radio-in-a-bag has potentially weeks or even months. I know which I would choose for spying on radio transmissions.
- Agentus 2y agoThere are geostationary satellites. they loiter.
- b112 2y ago[flagged]
- jameshart 2y agoA radius of 100mi from any military base would amount to a no-fly zone over most of the US.
- KennyBlanken 2y agoIt's not 'for effect'. It's the legal description of use of a firearm by police/military. The "drone threat" is a bunch of mass hysteria. Every photo I was shown was obviously a passenger jet liner.
- JohnBooty 2y agoIt's not 'for effect'. It's the legal description of use of a firearm by police/military. That's what I meant by "for effect." They were already able to shoot you. Ergo a reminder that the military or police can shoot you is for effect; it does not represent a change to the status quo.
- codedokode 2y agoDrones are dangerous. First, they can take high-quality photos, second they can jam the radio communications and GPS, third, they may contain explosives.
- SR2Z 2y ago> Unless I'm mistaken there are still plenty of drones being seen in NJ and they're not blasting them out of the sky. Would these drones be running FAA-standard navigation lights and a transponder? Because that seems to be the case for most of these drone spottings :)
- JohnBooty 2y agoI know what you're saying! Clearly the vast majority of these drone sightings seem to be regular aircraft. Some do not seem to be, although my skepticism is high because I have seen a lot of faked UFO videos over the years and faking points of light in the night sky is like, the easiest thing to fake in a fake video/photo. While I think this is unlikely, we could imagine that whoever is doing shady drone stuff might want to actually observe some basic safety rules, ridiculous as that sounds. Suppose for a second that these drones are a "flex" from China/Russia/whoever. Causing a midair collision with an aircraft because they're running dark, or risking the chance of that because they're running dark, is a lot more serious than just flying some drones. And if it's aliens, hey, maybe they're just trying to... uh, fit in by mimicing our airplanes' safety lights? =)