Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrob | Hacker News Reader

Agreed. Anybody who thinks this is overreach should read this article:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bGoo3NWzMAzsLQceJ/drone-wmds...

This article is a bit of a confusing mess, mostly stemming from confusion between two vastly different technologies that unfortunately share the same name. Shaheds and counter personnel quads deployed in Ukraine are vastly different technologies. Shaheds, for a lack of a better word, are essentially cheap cruise missiles which are effective because countering them currently usually requires an overly capable and much more expensive counter air missile. Doctrinally except for asymmetry of their cost, they are used much the same a cruise missile would be.

As for antipersonnel quads, Ukraine currently uses 7-8 inch ones. They are not small, quite loud and not exceptionally maneuverable. They are also extremely fragile and can be shot down by hitting just about any part of the quad. Also the thing about being difficult to detect using radars is just not true. They have a fairly large radar signature relative to their size which is also fairly unique because the spinning propellers cause Doppler shift on the rotating props. Small autocannons are already being developed for this role and in the urban environments similar systems using nets are being considered. There are also some prototypes of special rifles or rifle attachments for counter drone use being tested in Ukraine for infantry use.

The two most realistic dangers come from concealing them in shipping containers and then deploying them deep behind enemy lines (I am fairly sure this is already illegal in most jurisdictions) and targeted assassinations, where defending against drone threat is not that different than defending against other assassinations threats (concealed bombs, gunmen, snipers etc.).

I've been a bit surprised this hasn't been happening already. I don't know if the eventual trigger is going to be ICE murders or what, but with as accessible as the tech is, as much unrest as currently exists, and no shortage of people willing to inflict lethal violence via other mechanisms, I would've thought we'd have had at least a little drone violence by now.

People are better than we give ourselves credit for. I remember working at Disneyland during 9/11, the FBI told us we were considered the 4th most likely target in the United States, and mandatory bag checks at the gates made the lines longer and slower than they'd ever been, so enormous crowds, thousands of people, were gathered and effectively trapped between Harbor Blvd and the actual gates. I couldn't help but think how easy it would be for a few guys or even just one to gun down hundreds with a couple of uzis or throw a few pipe bombs into the crowd. Nobody ever did. That Las Vegas concert shooting was the closest anyone has ever come. There are probably many vulnerabilities like that. Poison the water supply to a hospital. Close off a mine on purpose. My girlfriend's brother back in 2004 managed to drive his speedboat with me in it through the LA harbor, right alongside container ships, and succeeded in evading the Coast Guard. It was just a joyride to him, but someone more malicious could probably sink a container ship or even an oil tanker.

These things almost never happen because people just aren't that evil, at least most of the time. When it happens, it's an extraordinary event.

>That Las Vegas concert shooting was the closest anyone has ever come.

And yet tens of thousands of us die in the US one or two at a time due to guns.

Humans are odd little copy machines. For example when a big name suicide occurs there tends to be a pretty sharp rise in copycat suicides.

Things tend to add up not in big events, but the long tail sweeps up huge numbers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com