Drug cartel assassinates its enemies with bomb-toting drones(thedrive.com)
thedrive.com
Drug cartel assassinates its enemies with bomb-toting drones
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/36013/mexican-drug-cartel-now-assassinating-its-enemies-with-improvised-explosive-toting-drones
368 comments
>>I also believe humanity’s chances of escaping the great filter is ~0%
That turned dark, quickly. I was nodding my head up until that point. Things may look bleak now, but I live believing that humanity’s chances are higher than a measly ~0%.
That turned dark, quickly. I was nodding my head up until that point. Things may look bleak now, but I live believing that humanity’s chances are higher than a measly ~0%.
I think we are fundamentally too tribal and violent as a species. I think there is nothing we can do against millions of years of natural selection favoring the furthering of your kin at the expense of your species. We aren't wired for civilized society, it has to be learned and ingrained and even then, we revert to our tribal tendencies at the slightest encounter with an unknown.
Without knowing what the actual answer to survive the filter might be, it's worth noting that across the entire universe, it's surely statistically unlikely that not a single species has made it through to the other side.
If they have broken through, and assuming that they would view as a positive the breakthrough of other species through the "great filter" (and hence the collective uplift of intelligent life in the universe) - there's an implication that maybe what is required for breakthrough cannot - by definition - be transferred (in a similar way that children have to learn some lessons for themselves no matter what your parenting style).
Either that, or they haven't gotten to us yet, or they're species-ist and quite happy to be the only ones past the filter.
If they have broken through, and assuming that they would view as a positive the breakthrough of other species through the "great filter" (and hence the collective uplift of intelligent life in the universe) - there's an implication that maybe what is required for breakthrough cannot - by definition - be transferred (in a similar way that children have to learn some lessons for themselves no matter what your parenting style).
Either that, or they haven't gotten to us yet, or they're species-ist and quite happy to be the only ones past the filter.
An interesting example (or maybe counterexample) is thinking about how your first paragraph is relevant at any point in history. Compared to sticks, a bow causes asymmetrical damage.
I think this is part of what makes it so scary. The current changes are nothing new, it's just that we're approaching the point where these threats can be existential. Once that happens, unless something really massive has changed in human society, it's probably game over.
How are drones a bigger existential threat than nuclear weapons? If anything drones look absolutely inferior to what came before. They are expensive and low in capability.
And that argument is exhibit A for why Mars colonization is so important. It gives us a second chance to figure out how to live with existential threats.
Extra terrestrial expansion will be the magnus opum of a species that has adopted science as a standard. For a few decades, such an inhospitable location will become a mecca for "the best of us" (off world or not).
The conditions necessary for successful mission executions will insulate this unique group of colonists from the existential threats created by citizens naturally responding to their failed government (drug cartel would not exist if humanity could find a place and purpose for everyone).
I'd imagine that this is our own version of the "filter" described in the root comment. The high standards of heavily funded interstellar ventures will bring together strong-willed, healthy, intelligent, empathetic, curious, and ambitious men&women to operate several light-minutes away from Earth. These are the types of people we should want to be breeding with each other for a few generations in order to produce higher quality citizens that will carry on the project (surely there will be medical implications rearing children in 0.5 G, see lifelong asteroid miner portrayal in "the Expanse").
The conditions necessary for successful mission executions will insulate this unique group of colonists from the existential threats created by citizens naturally responding to their failed government (drug cartel would not exist if humanity could find a place and purpose for everyone).
I'd imagine that this is our own version of the "filter" described in the root comment. The high standards of heavily funded interstellar ventures will bring together strong-willed, healthy, intelligent, empathetic, curious, and ambitious men&women to operate several light-minutes away from Earth. These are the types of people we should want to be breeding with each other for a few generations in order to produce higher quality citizens that will carry on the project (surely there will be medical implications rearing children in 0.5 G, see lifelong asteroid miner portrayal in "the Expanse").
Magnum opus*
But that is not a useful term here because there is a finality to it. The filter and expansion just sets the stage for someone to one day be able to exist and conjure up something as vast as a Dyson Sphere (or Halo).
But that is not a useful term here because there is a finality to it. The filter and expansion just sets the stage for someone to one day be able to exist and conjure up something as vast as a Dyson Sphere (or Halo).
[deleted]
Only way to overcome this great filter is by adopting policies that provide equal opportunities to each member of the species and create a non-divisive/united society where everyone practically helps each other
How does this utopian ideal address the lone nutcase who would actually do something like destroy an entire city if he could? The Unabomber wasn't standing up for BLM or fighting income inequality, you know.
How does this utopian ideal address the lone nutcase who would actually do something like destroy an entire city if he could? The Unabomber wasn't standing up for BLM or fighting income inequality, you know.
Having a social structure where everyone is checked up on, and people who seem to be up to no good can be talked about.
Alternatively and additionally, automated, limited, algorithmic surveillance and controls over some technologies. It's certainly difficult, but not completely impossible. There really aren't that many lone wolf nutcases that have the resources and ability to do such damage. It generally turns up warning signs and and/or takes coordinated groups.
The Unabomber also wasn't a completely mad act, he had some method to his madness and his crimes ultimately came from his perception of the modern world as a horrible place to live in and a destruction of the environment.
Alternatively and additionally, automated, limited, algorithmic surveillance and controls over some technologies. It's certainly difficult, but not completely impossible. There really aren't that many lone wolf nutcases that have the resources and ability to do such damage. It generally turns up warning signs and and/or takes coordinated groups.
The Unabomber also wasn't a completely mad act, he had some method to his madness and his crimes ultimately came from his perception of the modern world as a horrible place to live in and a destruction of the environment.
This is why I said we would need to colonise other planets. It is all about statistics, such crises must be occurring regularly even on highly advanced societies. So long as these events occur rarely, and doesn’t affect other planets, civilisation will continue and thrive.
Universe is a large place, statistically speaking there must be criminal empires, psychotic species, and all kinds of other madness that exist but I believe these types of societies would be a considerable rarity as it is hard to pass great filter with such social structures.
Universe is a large place, statistically speaking there must be criminal empires, psychotic species, and all kinds of other madness that exist but I believe these types of societies would be a considerable rarity as it is hard to pass great filter with such social structures.
Not that providing equal opportunities is a bad thing by any means, but I don't think it solves this problem. In a city of a million people, even a very egalitarian one, the most psychopathic person in the city is going to be pretty psychopathic.
Like our minds, all civilizations might only exist at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_of_chaos
Consider the possibility that people generally don’t want to destroy. They want to control. Asymmetric power might just force adjustments in control.
What does it look like if almost anyone can destroy concentrated populations? Maybe a police state. Maybe everyone spreads out. And then what does that do to power? Etc.
I don’t think the end result is necessarily that someone pushes the button and we all die out.
I think The Expanse revealed an interesting iteration of this concept: the ability to capture and hurl asteroids at your enemy.
What does it look like if almost anyone can destroy concentrated populations? Maybe a police state. Maybe everyone spreads out. And then what does that do to power? Etc.
I don’t think the end result is necessarily that someone pushes the button and we all die out.
I think The Expanse revealed an interesting iteration of this concept: the ability to capture and hurl asteroids at your enemy.
I'm just a bit surprised that it's drones that are getting you down when we have an exciting nuclear arms race going on that is barely reported in the media.
[deleted]
> a single determined person can destroy an entire city
That's already true, and has been for a while, if you count medical doctors with a reasonable degree of connectedness.
That's already true, and has been for a while, if you count medical doctors with a reasonable degree of connectedness.
What exactly do you mean by that? Is there some
famous story I’m not aware of?
...I can’t help but sense some crazy coming my way.
...I can’t help but sense some crazy coming my way.
Not the parent commentator but I assume this is a reference to a medical doctor having access to a significant contagion. For example the CDC keeps stocks of eradicated but virulent diseases.
Pretty much. It doesn't have to be much more than having access to the contents of a decently large hospital, IIRC.
Short-range air defense (SHORAD) is going to be a huge growth area for defense contractors over the next several years.
I wonder if we can repurpose mm-wave 60GHz panel antennas and SDRs for cheap short-range radars. Then combine with a commercial infrared camera for multi-mode target acquisition. Put those on a mount with servos to control a PKM or M240 machinegun, and mount the whole setup on the roofs of buildings. Critical infrastructure anti-drone air defense guns at fairly low cost.
Then you just get stealth drones (fixed wing). Bondo, styrofoam, electric ducted fans, frequency hopping radio links, all easily doable. Only hard part really is range. For that, I could see hybrid electrics that power down the gas/nitro engine for stealth.
Or even just a gas turbine, as RC people already use. 10:1 TWR, relatively cheap. Quite loud, but works at high altitudes.
Small gas powered drones for the military are already pretty common.
Firing a machine gun in a city is a huge risk. A free falling bullet can still kill a human.
> Put those on a mount with servos to control a PKM or M240 machinegun
Leaving weapons unattended like that is a recipe for disaster. Even worse if they're network-connected (look at the tons of insecure IoT devices already out there).
Leaving weapons unattended like that is a recipe for disaster. Even worse if they're network-connected (look at the tons of insecure IoT devices already out there).
What????? What he is describing already exists and is extensively used. CRAM - it shoots down rockets and artillery. Go watch a video of it
CRAMs are both several tons in weight, require a lot of power and special mounting, and are found mounted on a warship or in a military base; you're not really going to worry about some random insurgent carrying it off. Besides, they eat 20x102mm ammunition, which isn't exactly common stuff.
That is a far cry from the consequences of leaving a M240 around, which is both man portable and consumes the incredibly common 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge.
That is a far cry from the consequences of leaving a M240 around, which is both man portable and consumes the incredibly common 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge.
Those cheap antennas don't have sufficient power output or precision for that application. Going to be expensive.
You'd think that broadband directed antennas would be pretty good at this already. The technology has been around for decades. It would be fun to maybe convert bill gates mosquito lasers (amp them up obviously) to shooting down drones if they get in illegal airspace.
Imagine a hundred thousand of these things. Ugh. I don’t wanna know if that’s in our future.
Each with and incendiary charge and the GPS coordinates of every home/building in a city. Who needs Tokyo/Dresden firebombing anymore.
Sounds a lot easier than attaching incendiaries to bats, at least...
Which is something the US actually tried. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb
Which is something the US actually tried. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb
Allied bombing is a thing that happened, but sometimes it seems like people really strain to relate anything to something shameful associated with Americans.
In this particular context, if you're thinking of WWII, it's kind of odd for a person not to think of and compare the concept to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu-Go_balloon_bomb
In this particular context, if you're thinking of WWII, it's kind of odd for a person not to think of and compare the concept to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu-Go_balloon_bomb
Parent just listed two of the most brutal single attack conventional bombings of a city in history.
This could be due to some agenda to shame the Allies for their involvement in WW2, or it could just be because WW2 is really the only time in history it was done on that scale and the Allies happened to win the conflict.
I'm going to go with principle of charity and assume the latter...
This could be due to some agenda to shame the Allies for their involvement in WW2, or it could just be because WW2 is really the only time in history it was done on that scale and the Allies happened to win the conflict.
I'm going to go with principle of charity and assume the latter...
It would be absurd to attribute every mention of Dresden or Hiroshima or whatever to an anti-American agenda. People simply inhabit an environment where that is what comes to mind. Maybe people don't see the similarity I do, or maybe the thing that I think relevant is obscure. But I'm noting that it sometimes seems strained and odd, from my personal perspective. Blaming an individual here and now was not my intent. I'm more saying, look at the bubble english speakers inhabit, I wonder how we got here, since most people doubtlessly aren't acting out of a conscious or malicious agenda.
[deleted]
On the bright side, you don't need to bomb everyone. Future wars could be more efficient.
But that lowers the deterrence factor. If you’ve got lethal drones that can target any individual you want then who needs war when you can establish a totalitarian state? Just eliminate all of your enemies with drones and use them to keep the population firmly under your heel.
But then your enemies also drones you, and so does the popualtion. They're pretty easy to make and import.
I think that this is a great point. It's also a little scary when you think about the data sets that exist out there for advertising. Any way that someone targets an ad could be the selection criteria for these efficient wars.
My next thought is that programmers do have an opportunity to take moral stands against some of these things. We can't stop someone somewhere from building these terrible things but we might be able to make it harder by preventing huge problematic privacy invading data sets from existing.
My next thought is that programmers do have an opportunity to take moral stands against some of these things. We can't stop someone somewhere from building these terrible things but we might be able to make it harder by preventing huge problematic privacy invading data sets from existing.
If "winning" is what you care about.
Elon's talked about this on stage, where easily could have 1,000 to 100,000 of them with just a tiny amount of C4 - and then have them swarm at one or many targets using AI or other training/data.
Killbots is a scifi short based on this. Don't watch if you're squirmish though.
[deleted]
*squeamish.
Using overwhelming numbers of small and expendable weapons is a tried and true strategy.
Drone swarms are coming once the technology gets mature enough, mostly in speed and carrying capacity.
Drone swarms are coming once the technology gets mature enough, mostly in speed and carrying capacity.
Isn’t that one of the scenes in the Iron Man? Elon isn’t as original
I wonder if it will get to the personal device level..
Heh there was that killerbot video back in the day, swarm of small bomb drones hunting via facial recognition. Cartels are quite innovative when it comes to killing
That video where a terrorist group successfully stole a military weapon shown to be at or above the level of importance of a Predator drone...
Then decided to kill a specific person instead of just bombing the entire building where they apparently knew that person would be
I never bought into the premise that it should be more scary than if a terrorist group was to steal a sophisticated military strike weapon today.
We have drones carrying missiles that can kill a person in the passenger seat of a car without killing the driver by deploying swords after launch, I think we leapfrogged DJI drones with facial recognition and grenades in terms of brutality
Then decided to kill a specific person instead of just bombing the entire building where they apparently knew that person would be
I never bought into the premise that it should be more scary than if a terrorist group was to steal a sophisticated military strike weapon today.
We have drones carrying missiles that can kill a person in the passenger seat of a car without killing the driver by deploying swords after launch, I think we leapfrogged DJI drones with facial recognition and grenades in terms of brutality
This one, I believe. https://youtu.be/9CO6M2HsoIA
If this kind of thing keeps up it wouldn't be much of a stretch for drones to be banned from civilian ownership in many parts of the world.
The issue will be enforcement of these laws.
How will you regulate the possession and distribution of IMUs and electric motors?
Hell most of the parts you need to build a drone are available in a used cellphone and many of the rest can be 3d printed.
How will you regulate the possession and distribution of IMUs and electric motors?
Hell most of the parts you need to build a drone are available in a used cellphone and many of the rest can be 3d printed.
To underscore your point, here's an example of how easy it is to get god-tier military hardware in Mexico from one of the many people breaking bad across the border in the US.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/arming...
This fella in Texas was selling .50-cals and miniguns straight to the Cartels for years. There are likely many, many more like him.
Mexican think tanks have spent years trying to figure out how the hell to stop the massive flow of weapons into Mexico from Texas and Arizona.
https://www.mexicoevalua.org/mexicoevalua/wp-content/uploads...
US think tanks too, notably David Shirk at USD has done a bunch of work on this.
https://catcher.sandiego.edu/items/peacestudies/way_of_the_g...
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/arming...
This fella in Texas was selling .50-cals and miniguns straight to the Cartels for years. There are likely many, many more like him.
Mexican think tanks have spent years trying to figure out how the hell to stop the massive flow of weapons into Mexico from Texas and Arizona.
https://www.mexicoevalua.org/mexicoevalua/wp-content/uploads...
US think tanks too, notably David Shirk at USD has done a bunch of work on this.
https://catcher.sandiego.edu/items/peacestudies/way_of_the_g...
There was an absolutely trivial solution: send a few fighter planes to blow up the haciendas and spray herbicide on the plantations. But the US government prefers to profit and make political hay from the drug war.
Dude that's how you get the child of American senators kidnapped andmailed back in pieces or another 9/11.
Everything sounds simple in theory until you think of the consequences.
Everything sounds simple in theory until you think of the consequences.
I think a lot of it has shifted over into meth as well, with the availability of cheap precursors from China, and loose security on ports.
Can't stop it at the source anymore.
Can't stop it at the source anymore.
In 2019 the Trump administration considered formally designating the Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations. They backed off on that approach, but had they gone ahead it probably would have led to drone strikes.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50697635
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50697635
It's been tried. It didn't work.
It is quite easy to make your own bombs and firearms as well, all with perfectly legal materials. They may not have the effectiveness of commercially made versions, but they'll get the job done in a pinch.
Typically, I think, laws against possession of such homemade illegal goods are enforced as add-on charges to other crimes, unless you are selling them.
Typically, I think, laws against possession of such homemade illegal goods are enforced as add-on charges to other crimes, unless you are selling them.
There was a German terrorist trying to shoot up a Synagogue in Halle. He had an impressive stash of homemade firearms yet none of them were powerful enough to actually open the thick wooden gate to the synagogue. A ladder and a knife would have killed more people.
You're going to run into the same situation with drones. It is easy to imagine some super complicated drone based attack scheme when there are far simpler and more effective methods of taking care of a target involving firearms.
You're going to run into the same situation with drones. It is easy to imagine some super complicated drone based attack scheme when there are far simpler and more effective methods of taking care of a target involving firearms.
If they made it legal to shoot them on sight in Texas that would go a long ways here to keep their numbers down.
As far as I know C4 isn't for civilians either..
Tannerite is, though. (And where it isn't, blasting charges for mining are. And where those aren't, fertilizer probably still is. Explosives are hard, yet also far easier than you'd think)
You'll find that regular fertilizer has explosion retardant additives. Which made me think (and was confirmed later) that the Beirut explosion was 'weapons grade' ammonium nitrate, rather than the stuff sold to civilians.
For instance; https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cen-v073n022.p006
For instance; https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cen-v073n022.p006
Buy those things and you’ll end up on a list and under surveillance quickly.
Doesn't that imply you're already under surveillance? The list that we're on is: anyone who is alive and can be surveiled.
No, but there are specific collaborations for high risk purveyors of things like explosive precursors.
If you show up at a farm store to buy certain fertilizers in unusual quantities, that interaction will likely be reported or otherwise flagged.
If you show up at a farm store to buy certain fertilizers in unusual quantities, that interaction will likely be reported or otherwise flagged.
Really all it takes is for one incident where someone gets killed. We live in a ban-happy society that doesn't consider the consequences of banning absolutely everything except maybe videogames.
Interesting map, its crazy how often these groups fracture and splinter!
Really wish one of these would go publicly traded and report revenue, leading to real price discovery of these operations and ability to manage risk.
There are permissionless systems they can use now to list shares, and if they have a liquidity issue they just need to take over a dam and generate some electricity for themselves for their crypto mining hardware which will convert to currency.
I know I know, multiple topics for people to disagree with so I don't expect this to lead to a conversation about solutions today, I'm just making a note publicly that I perceived the possibilities before it happened.
Really wish one of these would go publicly traded and report revenue, leading to real price discovery of these operations and ability to manage risk.
There are permissionless systems they can use now to list shares, and if they have a liquidity issue they just need to take over a dam and generate some electricity for themselves for their crypto mining hardware which will convert to currency.
I know I know, multiple topics for people to disagree with so I don't expect this to lead to a conversation about solutions today, I'm just making a note publicly that I perceived the possibilities before it happened.
During colonialism, you could buy stocks in companies erecting colonial empires, like the dutch east india company, or the british east india company. They had ships, troops, and actually did engage in trafficking if you can call that, by avoiding the silk road and its large dangers/taxes.
They also engaged in massive transcontinental drug trafficking, and in many cases were vertically integrated. They owned the land/fields, the people/slaves, the plantations, the drug crops/opium poppies, the processing chain, and also the sales, and the troops/armies were used to force people to take/buy drugs. If you refused to buy or take the drugs, they would burn your entire country down to ashes, and of course, enslave the people there to make more drugs.
Sounds kind of like what certain world powers do with oil and mining these days.
That’s because nothing has changed except we learned that it is easier to manage regions if you dont annex them and instead let the nearest bystander run the country.
The people there accept it and it is cheaper and you still get the resources for all eternity, which is all you really wanted.
The people there accept it and it is cheaper and you still get the resources for all eternity, which is all you really wanted.
Could you name a couple of countries they burned down because nobody would buy or take drugs?
The Opium Wars between China and the British Empire were a result of China's attempt to shut down the opium trade.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Opium-Wars
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Opium-Wars
Hong Kong is a geopolitical football because the Mayor of Hong Kong tried to stop a foreign corporation from getting their citizens addicted to drugs.
In accordance with British commercial law, the foreign corporation returned with the British Navy and took it over. And then kept pushing the drugs successfully.
In accordance with British commercial law, the foreign corporation returned with the British Navy and took it over. And then kept pushing the drugs successfully.
Search for the opium wars, fascinating (and terrifying) stuff.
Is this a roundabout way of trying to associate cryptocurrencies with criminal groups?
In case this isn't obvious, no, there's no trustless way to make an entity distribute its real world profits to holders of a crypto token. We're talking about mafias here, groups which specialize in hiding money streams. Only enforcement from a real world judiciary system can enforce dividend distribution.
In case this isn't obvious, no, there's no trustless way to make an entity distribute its real world profits to holders of a crypto token. We're talking about mafias here, groups which specialize in hiding money streams. Only enforcement from a real world judiciary system can enforce dividend distribution.
It doesn't need to be trustless.
Is this a roundabout way of trying to associate cryptocurrencies with a prerequisite of trustlessness for everything that uses them?
This is just corporations using permissionless architecture, there have been companies doing this on blockchains for almost 10 years. I used to own shares of SatoshiDice for the daily dividends it paid onchain from 2012-2013.
The market enforces the behavior. A cartel that pays nice dividends will have a better share price and deeper secondary market, allowing them and their employees to always sell shares for more money. A corporation that doesnt perform well for shareholders doesnt have the same market.
I think I’m the one specifically drawing no distinction between criminal groups and liquidity, because they are unrelated concepts.
Is this a roundabout way of trying to associate cryptocurrencies with a prerequisite of trustlessness for everything that uses them?
This is just corporations using permissionless architecture, there have been companies doing this on blockchains for almost 10 years. I used to own shares of SatoshiDice for the daily dividends it paid onchain from 2012-2013.
The market enforces the behavior. A cartel that pays nice dividends will have a better share price and deeper secondary market, allowing them and their employees to always sell shares for more money. A corporation that doesnt perform well for shareholders doesnt have the same market.
I think I’m the one specifically drawing no distinction between criminal groups and liquidity, because they are unrelated concepts.
Unless, of course, the same tokens were used to conduct the drug transactions.
Then all the token holders have an interest in preventing non-tokenized transactions.
This is all ridiculous (and evil of course) but it has a certain internally consistent logic to it.
Why would they adopt a new system given they've got such a good grip on current one?
Then all the token holders have an interest in preventing non-tokenized transactions.
This is all ridiculous (and evil of course) but it has a certain internally consistent logic to it.
Why would they adopt a new system given they've got such a good grip on current one?
Thats why they would mine virgin cryptocurrency.
I think people are conflating which crypto is used for what here lol, but thats predictable. There would be two cryptocurrencies involved: the share, and the cash-surrogate as profits.
Forget about the problems, think solutions and it will be easier to iterate towards and perceive a system that works.
I think people are conflating which crypto is used for what here lol, but thats predictable. There would be two cryptocurrencies involved: the share, and the cash-surrogate as profits.
Forget about the problems, think solutions and it will be easier to iterate towards and perceive a system that works.
If these groups effectively control territory, then maybe formalizing that control rather than trying to fight against it makes sense. That way, instead of a cartel trying to infiltrate and bribe the local law enforcement, the law enforcement could be paid a competitive and transparent monthly fee in return for helping to protect the cartel's territory. (This would mean arresting competing cartel members caught there, and giving immunity to members of the locally approved cartel who are caught in shoot-outs with their rivals).
Part of the issue is that the cartels have always provided a sort of summer camp for psychopaths.
Charles Bowden wrote a bit about how absolutely terrifying it was to be anywhere in the proximity of these organizations.
By formalizing it, you would be essentially giving a formal role to guys who cut people's limbs off with chainsaws and post videos of it on LiveLeak.
Fighting the cartels leads to unimaginable violence, and leaving them alone just leads to them infiltrating every single level of the Mexican government, and carrying on with the violence anyway.
It is the sorrow of the country to be situated by an accident of geography between the single biggest market for meth and cocaine on the planet (who also happens to sell lots of military-grade weapons to anyone with a pulse), and the largest cocaine producing region on the planet.
Charles Bowden wrote a bit about how absolutely terrifying it was to be anywhere in the proximity of these organizations.
By formalizing it, you would be essentially giving a formal role to guys who cut people's limbs off with chainsaws and post videos of it on LiveLeak.
Fighting the cartels leads to unimaginable violence, and leaving them alone just leads to them infiltrating every single level of the Mexican government, and carrying on with the violence anyway.
It is the sorrow of the country to be situated by an accident of geography between the single biggest market for meth and cocaine on the planet (who also happens to sell lots of military-grade weapons to anyone with a pulse), and the largest cocaine producing region on the planet.
There are countries that routinely chop peoples heads off in a form of due process that we would not recognize or respect for seemingly minor actions. Even the most developed nations have laws to chop off the hands of thieves.
We vilify and drone people with the same belief systems merely because they are not associated with an existing state, non-state combatants.
There is simply no distinction I can lean on that would lead me to avoid formalizing reality. The concept of the state simply isn't legitimacy to me, it is just consensus. Cartels already have that consensus and act like public enterprises in their region.
Do notice, I’m not arguing for anything to occur, I am recognizing that nobody has to ask permission to achieve access to the capital markets and noticing how that fits types of organizations that are not welcomed in established capital markets.
We vilify and drone people with the same belief systems merely because they are not associated with an existing state, non-state combatants.
There is simply no distinction I can lean on that would lead me to avoid formalizing reality. The concept of the state simply isn't legitimacy to me, it is just consensus. Cartels already have that consensus and act like public enterprises in their region.
Do notice, I’m not arguing for anything to occur, I am recognizing that nobody has to ask permission to achieve access to the capital markets and noticing how that fits types of organizations that are not welcomed in established capital markets.
If I understand correctly what you are saying, you are arguing that we take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. I very much respect that position.
However, I would argue that there is definitely not a consensus. The Mexican people are fighting with their lives against these organizations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grupos_de_Autodefensa_Comunita...
Mexico has a central government that is weak in some respects. Their judicial system is not what it needs to be. Certain transnational criminal organizations have taken advantage of this to establish enclaves of power.
That does not mean that they are recognized as legitimate political entities by the Mexican people and should be given some formal recognition of authority by the Mexican government or the country's neighbors.
Say my neighbor is in my front yard waving an AR-15 and screaming at me that trash day was yesterday and I need to bring my garbage cans in. I'm sure as hell not going out there to talk to him, but that doesn't mean I recognize him as the new de-facto mayor of my front yard. He's just the lunatic in my front yard screaming at me who I'm going to do my best to avoid, and hopefully at some point the cops will show up and get him out of my yard.
However, I would argue that there is definitely not a consensus. The Mexican people are fighting with their lives against these organizations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grupos_de_Autodefensa_Comunita...
Mexico has a central government that is weak in some respects. Their judicial system is not what it needs to be. Certain transnational criminal organizations have taken advantage of this to establish enclaves of power.
That does not mean that they are recognized as legitimate political entities by the Mexican people and should be given some formal recognition of authority by the Mexican government or the country's neighbors.
Say my neighbor is in my front yard waving an AR-15 and screaming at me that trash day was yesterday and I need to bring my garbage cans in. I'm sure as hell not going out there to talk to him, but that doesn't mean I recognize him as the new de-facto mayor of my front yard. He's just the lunatic in my front yard screaming at me who I'm going to do my best to avoid, and hopefully at some point the cops will show up and get him out of my yard.
Right. Its a good message and diverges a bit from my point:
All organizations can access the capital markets now. It a waste of public resources from the “legitimate” states to try to whitelist transactions so stop burdening everyone over that because its pointless. The end.
I am curious how the market will value these enterprises if they begin giving steady dividends. The price discovery is fascinating.
All organizations can access the capital markets now. It a waste of public resources from the “legitimate” states to try to whitelist transactions so stop burdening everyone over that because its pointless. The end.
I am curious how the market will value these enterprises if they begin giving steady dividends. The price discovery is fascinating.
I think there was sort of a formalization of territory when the Colombian cartels controlled the entire chain from production in the jungle to the sale in US streets.
The violence and territorial wars in Mexico since the early 2000s are as I understand it a direct consequence of the demise of the Colombian Cali and Medellín cartels, with numerous groups trying to fill the power vacuum left.
What you describe often is happening on a local level, but there will always be outbursts of violence somewhere as soon as someone threatens the "peace". Getting drugs into the US is just way too lucrative a business. The fighting will just keep shifting places as long as this is the case.
The violence and territorial wars in Mexico since the early 2000s are as I understand it a direct consequence of the demise of the Colombian Cali and Medellín cartels, with numerous groups trying to fill the power vacuum left.
What you describe often is happening on a local level, but there will always be outbursts of violence somewhere as soon as someone threatens the "peace". Getting drugs into the US is just way too lucrative a business. The fighting will just keep shifting places as long as this is the case.
Cartels have a feudalists political structure. I don't think feudalism is really a thing in the modern world.
Your two sentences directly contradict each other.
What do you mean to say?
What do you mean to say?
I think they meant the first descriptively and the second prescriptively.
Grain of salt and such, but here's a revenue figure I found in this very interesting 2020 congressional report "Mexico: Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking Organizations".
"By some estimates, Sinaloa had grown to control 40%-60% of Mexico’s drug trade by 2012 and had annual earnings calculated to be as high as $3 billion."
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41576.pdf
"By some estimates, Sinaloa had grown to control 40%-60% of Mexico’s drug trade by 2012 and had annual earnings calculated to be as high as $3 billion."
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41576.pdf
Ah, crypto markets are big enough to accomodate their needs via mining now.
Publicly traded? How does that work for illegal operations? And as far as I'm aware crypto currencies really aren't profitable anymore, ignoring needing an internet connection, leading to tracing the transactions back to this hijacked dam.
What do you mean by profitable? A cartel could raise capital through some erc token that gives the holder the right to some sort of dividend.
The only issue for an illegal operation would be paying dividends, where they need to get their illicit cash to the shareholders.
This is solved by obtaining cryptocurrency and issuing that to shareholders whose record of ownership is tied to a cryptographic tradable share such as using the erc20 standard or erc1404 standard (for programmers that haven't really had an opportunity to see whats going on, these are just classes you can inherit, for design patterns that lead to fungible tradable assets), but obtaining enough cryptocurrency has been a challenge for an organization operating at this scale, as the electronic payment system generally isn't an option even when HSBC is helping, and the physical cash system for crypto system still isn't large enough.
These issues are solved by purchasing computational hardware instead to mine the equivalent amount of cryptocurrency. Mining is not very profitable because there are many people that don't mine for a profit, are the hints obvious enough. It can be at a huge loss as long the haircut on conversion to money is still better than the 20-30% haircut people tolerate in reintegrating illicit money to licit money without the advent of crypto. Regardless, it uses energy and a cartel is in a position to create energy. Either way, mining is extremely profitable for people with low energy costs, the idea of someone mining in their residential unit has been a misnomer for most of the decade.
Mining doesn't need to report your location. This is as simple as using a VPN to reach the mining pool. And if you have enough hardware not to need a mining pool then in many networks your IP address is not reported to the cryptocurrency network, but a VPN can still be a practical privacy measure for this, as you typically don't want cryptocurrency communities to know that you control much of the network.
The energy use itself will be the main giveaway, but only if someone finds an issue with the energy use.
"Mining or not" is still a red herring, its "can cartel obtain enough crypto or not to pay shareholders"
Regardless, in this model the newly minted cryptocurrency is paid out shareholders on record, the record being a share asset minted via the erc20 standard or erc1404 standard. Anybody would be able to buy a cartel share, and it wouldn't necessarily be flag worthy that some cryptocurrency was sent to an address that happened to have a cartel share. Either way it is down to the shareholder to further clean that crypto if they feel like they need to.
If something about this doesn't seem viable I think you also need to understand that not everyone needs fiat currency. These same shareholders don't necessarily ever need to go to a bank, as there are many investment opportunities in the parallel crypto economy, and enough people willing to exchange physical goods for cryptocurrency. The physical economy always being a tiny fraction of the investment economy. Not all shareholders need to worry about banks.
In the meantime, we get a clearer view of the universe of investible assets, and the drug market. Its only been one century of trying to draw a distinction between publicly traded companies as a higher standard of business processes and validation we respect, and marginalizing all others. Before, the East India Companies were the hottest things to trade, and were taking over countries specifically to sell them drugs. So people looking for yield won't draw a distinction, and the technology supports not needing to ask for permission.
This is solved by obtaining cryptocurrency and issuing that to shareholders whose record of ownership is tied to a cryptographic tradable share such as using the erc20 standard or erc1404 standard (for programmers that haven't really had an opportunity to see whats going on, these are just classes you can inherit, for design patterns that lead to fungible tradable assets), but obtaining enough cryptocurrency has been a challenge for an organization operating at this scale, as the electronic payment system generally isn't an option even when HSBC is helping, and the physical cash system for crypto system still isn't large enough.
These issues are solved by purchasing computational hardware instead to mine the equivalent amount of cryptocurrency. Mining is not very profitable because there are many people that don't mine for a profit, are the hints obvious enough. It can be at a huge loss as long the haircut on conversion to money is still better than the 20-30% haircut people tolerate in reintegrating illicit money to licit money without the advent of crypto. Regardless, it uses energy and a cartel is in a position to create energy. Either way, mining is extremely profitable for people with low energy costs, the idea of someone mining in their residential unit has been a misnomer for most of the decade.
Mining doesn't need to report your location. This is as simple as using a VPN to reach the mining pool. And if you have enough hardware not to need a mining pool then in many networks your IP address is not reported to the cryptocurrency network, but a VPN can still be a practical privacy measure for this, as you typically don't want cryptocurrency communities to know that you control much of the network.
The energy use itself will be the main giveaway, but only if someone finds an issue with the energy use.
"Mining or not" is still a red herring, its "can cartel obtain enough crypto or not to pay shareholders"
Regardless, in this model the newly minted cryptocurrency is paid out shareholders on record, the record being a share asset minted via the erc20 standard or erc1404 standard. Anybody would be able to buy a cartel share, and it wouldn't necessarily be flag worthy that some cryptocurrency was sent to an address that happened to have a cartel share. Either way it is down to the shareholder to further clean that crypto if they feel like they need to.
If something about this doesn't seem viable I think you also need to understand that not everyone needs fiat currency. These same shareholders don't necessarily ever need to go to a bank, as there are many investment opportunities in the parallel crypto economy, and enough people willing to exchange physical goods for cryptocurrency. The physical economy always being a tiny fraction of the investment economy. Not all shareholders need to worry about banks.
In the meantime, we get a clearer view of the universe of investible assets, and the drug market. Its only been one century of trying to draw a distinction between publicly traded companies as a higher standard of business processes and validation we respect, and marginalizing all others. Before, the East India Companies were the hottest things to trade, and were taking over countries specifically to sell them drugs. So people looking for yield won't draw a distinction, and the technology supports not needing to ask for permission.
The laundering of money using compute and electricity is a very interesting idea that I hadn't thought of before. It's certainly within the cartels power (as quasi-state entities) to obtain cheap/free electricity and start mining. Given the billions and billions in cash just sitting in warehouses, Cartels would presumably be very interested in any way, even with a 50 or more percent haircut, to turn this dirty money into clean money in a legit bank account. While a mining operation won't have enough capacity for probably even 1% of that amount of capital, you would have to imagine that cartel leaders would still probably be interested in such a scheme.
A fascinating idea, thanks for sharing
A fascinating idea, thanks for sharing
How much cash are we really talking about?
Miners earn in aggregate
$3.8 billion in ether @ $430 and an average of 3 Ether per block
$3.9 billion in bitcoin @ $11,500 and an average of 6.5 bitcoin per block
(Transaction fees are a significant portion of block revenue now due to the heavy activity on these networks, with Ethereum blocks often having more fees earned than the block reward)
So there is about $8 billion worth of cryptocurrency earned by miners each year, at current exchange rates and activity levels. Cartel just should not exceed 50% of that. Market can tolerate much more and they would be in fierce competition with other miners.
We live in a world where people want the exchange rates to double or increase by an order of magnitude, which means that 8 billion figure becomes 80 billion, it should be clear that we are on the cusp of a market becoming highly attractive to larger incumbent organizations.
Miners earn in aggregate
$3.8 billion in ether @ $430 and an average of 3 Ether per block
$3.9 billion in bitcoin @ $11,500 and an average of 6.5 bitcoin per block
(Transaction fees are a significant portion of block revenue now due to the heavy activity on these networks, with Ethereum blocks often having more fees earned than the block reward)
So there is about $8 billion worth of cryptocurrency earned by miners each year, at current exchange rates and activity levels. Cartel just should not exceed 50% of that. Market can tolerate much more and they would be in fierce competition with other miners.
We live in a world where people want the exchange rates to double or increase by an order of magnitude, which means that 8 billion figure becomes 80 billion, it should be clear that we are on the cusp of a market becoming highly attractive to larger incumbent organizations.
Just taking over a dam - real life isn’t goldeneye
Okay. Then building energy producing resources themselves just like the state and respected corporate structures did. Maybe they could even employ people and build a surrounding town.
Just buy all the shares in an existing dam.
^Takeover bid* I believe they call it.
Hostile takeover bid is even a thing, and legal.
^Takeover bid* I believe they call it.
Hostile takeover bid is even a thing, and legal.
Or they could build one and even provide energy to a nearby town
Man I knew it was just a matter of time for this to happen, to easy to do and to many intelligent people with no morals (or just desperate, threatened etc.).
Anyway thinks like this make it more likely for unreasonable regulations, like even small drones being tracked when used or similar. But the bad joke is it's pointless as:
- The "bad" people can always circumvent such measurements (it's illegal but you plan to do illegal things anyway)
- Even if drones are banned it's not too hard to build them yourself from parts your will always be able to get one way or another for not too much money.
Anyway thinks like this make it more likely for unreasonable regulations, like even small drones being tracked when used or similar. But the bad joke is it's pointless as:
- The "bad" people can always circumvent such measurements (it's illegal but you plan to do illegal things anyway)
- Even if drones are banned it's not too hard to build them yourself from parts your will always be able to get one way or another for not too much money.
Is it unreasonable for small drones to be tracked? It's way too easy to get footage of private property or through otherwise obscured windows with drones.
Regulation doesn't have to be unreasonable.
Regulation doesn't have to be unreasonable.
I work in this field. There's two components to this.
There is the possibility to track devices from the manufacturer via serial numbers etc. Regulation will help here. This isn't useful until after the fact for evidence gathering.
The second is to track them in the sky. DJI has a product AeroScope that tracks their drones, my company has a competing product (this isn't a plug so won't mention the name). The issue with this is you need hardware to do it, or use existing hardware. This is expensive, so only really feasible for specific assets (pipelines, corrections and sports facilities etc).
There is the possibility to track devices from the manufacturer via serial numbers etc. Regulation will help here. This isn't useful until after the fact for evidence gathering.
The second is to track them in the sky. DJI has a product AeroScope that tracks their drones, my company has a competing product (this isn't a plug so won't mention the name). The issue with this is you need hardware to do it, or use existing hardware. This is expensive, so only really feasible for specific assets (pipelines, corrections and sports facilities etc).
> There is the possibility to track devices from the manufacturer via serial numbers etc. Regulation will help here. This isn't useful until after the fact for evidence gathering.
From where I'm, sitting, I can see one drone which can readily be "tracked via the manufacturer" (A DJI Spark). There are two more which came assembled - from random AliExpress (or maybe GearBest) vendors, which have nothing resembling a serial number nor any way to "phone home" to the manufacturer. There are another 5-6 which were completely assembled from parts (some of which I 3D printed myself) and which run open source software on ubiquitously available flight controllers. (And probably enough parts to assemble another 3 or 3 at least).
Most of those can be set up to fly completely autonomously, where jamming of the control channels and/or video link won't affect the completion of the flight plan. (Jamming GPS would fuck them all up though, but I might have enough parts on hand to make a machine vision and lidar and IMU capable SLAM platform, that'd be able to fly a mission plan even in the absence of a good GPS lock...)
(I'd be fascinated to know how your company's system fares against a reasonably creative "white hat" amateur drone builder who's intentionally set out to beat it...)
From where I'm, sitting, I can see one drone which can readily be "tracked via the manufacturer" (A DJI Spark). There are two more which came assembled - from random AliExpress (or maybe GearBest) vendors, which have nothing resembling a serial number nor any way to "phone home" to the manufacturer. There are another 5-6 which were completely assembled from parts (some of which I 3D printed myself) and which run open source software on ubiquitously available flight controllers. (And probably enough parts to assemble another 3 or 3 at least).
Most of those can be set up to fly completely autonomously, where jamming of the control channels and/or video link won't affect the completion of the flight plan. (Jamming GPS would fuck them all up though, but I might have enough parts on hand to make a machine vision and lidar and IMU capable SLAM platform, that'd be able to fly a mission plan even in the absence of a good GPS lock...)
(I'd be fascinated to know how your company's system fares against a reasonably creative "white hat" amateur drone builder who's intentionally set out to beat it...)
Yes there's plenty of difficulties with home-grown devices. Fortunately most people aren't capable of designing an over-the-air protocol like lightbridge, and there's a limited selection of chips to choose from.
Vision/IMU/Lidar are obviously much harder
My email is in my bio
Vision/IMU/Lidar are obviously much harder
My email is in my bio
>Regulation will help here. This isn't useful until after the fact for evidence gathering.
This is actually the most effective anti drone defense. The only meaningful benefit of a drone vs a firearm is that the pilot is unknown. If you can link a drone to its pilot then you can just use conventional law enforcement. This would force abusers to build their own drones and thereby limit the impact of drone attacks significantly.
This is actually the most effective anti drone defense. The only meaningful benefit of a drone vs a firearm is that the pilot is unknown. If you can link a drone to its pilot then you can just use conventional law enforcement. This would force abusers to build their own drones and thereby limit the impact of drone attacks significantly.
Or they’d just remove the serial numbers.
Sure, just like you can remove the serial numbers on guns, remove the license plate or remove the VIN of a car, etc.
There's already legislation in place requiring that drones over 250g be registered with the FAA.
They're also in the process of drafting legislation that would require drone pilots to sync flights in real time via internet connection. This is controversial however since many drone flights take place outside of internet connected areas (very remote areas, middle of national park, etc). The response from the drone community is that drones themselves should be required to broadcast a wifi network, so nearby planes/helicopters can be alerted when there's a drone nearby. So there's definitely regulation in the works, but the drone community is primarily worried they will be squeezed out in favor of commercial drone interests.
An interesting thing to point out is that the DJI mavic mini only weighs 249g (designed this way on purpose), making it a exempt from these regulations but still extremely capable (have had one for a few months now).
They're also in the process of drafting legislation that would require drone pilots to sync flights in real time via internet connection. This is controversial however since many drone flights take place outside of internet connected areas (very remote areas, middle of national park, etc). The response from the drone community is that drones themselves should be required to broadcast a wifi network, so nearby planes/helicopters can be alerted when there's a drone nearby. So there's definitely regulation in the works, but the drone community is primarily worried they will be squeezed out in favor of commercial drone interests.
An interesting thing to point out is that the DJI mavic mini only weighs 249g (designed this way on purpose), making it a exempt from these regulations but still extremely capable (have had one for a few months now).
Next thing you know will be 3d printed drone for the body with the battery, microelectronics and propulsion(?) sourced from Shenzhen, or salvaged from 2nd hand drone and smartphone.
For the software, with a few million dollars, probably, cartels might hire engineers to fork open source autopilot software to do the bidding. Everything done on darknet paid with cryptocurrency.
I was told drones were "cheap". What you just said is not cheap at all. Sure the cartel might be able to afford this but a lot of people in this thread are worrying about attacks against politicians and celebrities being committed by individual actors. That's not going to happen if the drone pilot can't get away with it.
You might need hundred thousand or low million to target person of interests. However, you might only need ten of thousand to target common individuals.
[deleted]
> many intelligent people with no morals (or just desperate, threatened etc.).
This comment is somehow bothersome. Only intelligent people are capable of buying and flying a drone? Or only intelligent people should know better?
This is a really basic attack combining techniques and capabilities the cartels and organized crime have probably had for decades with cheap off-the-shelf drones available to hobbyists.
Access to explosives is probably the only challenge here, and that has nothing to do with intelligence.
This comment is somehow bothersome. Only intelligent people are capable of buying and flying a drone? Or only intelligent people should know better?
This is a really basic attack combining techniques and capabilities the cartels and organized crime have probably had for decades with cheap off-the-shelf drones available to hobbyists.
Access to explosives is probably the only challenge here, and that has nothing to do with intelligence.
Could this become like other cheap, easy to manufacture societal disruptions like drugs - solution being: make them illegal.
Someone should write a book set in a science fiction dystopia where you have to apply for a specific permit to construct any device or write any software (lest you make a drone or a singularity AI), and where machine tools are carefully controlled and limited to regularly inspected industrial facilities.
> Someone should write a book set in a science fiction dystopia where you have to apply for a specific permit to construct any device or write any software (lest you make a drone or a singularity AI), and where machine tools are carefully controlled and limited to regularly inspected industrial facilities.
Something like RMS' story, The Right to Read?:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
Something like RMS' story, The Right to Read?:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
Insert obligatory reference to Slaughterbots (2017)
https://youtu.be/HipTO_7mUOw
https://youtu.be/HipTO_7mUOw
I think that might be a reupload of this? https://youtu.be/9CO6M2HsoIA
3x the views, at least.
3x the views, at least.
Black Mirror has an episode on this too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hated_in_the_Nation
When the technology improves sufficiently maybe there will be a drone the size of a dragonfly that land on targets and inject them with ricin or another poison. That requires a lot better targeting than a plastic container loaded with explosives and ball bearings, which just has to get close to the target. Still, it would make a great assassination tool.
I've been worrying about this for years.
What's next is micro-chemical attacks. Drones that can cloud an individual or small group of people. They'll think it was just dust or something, the thing zips off into the sky, and the linings of their lungs starts dissolving and they die.
What's next is micro-chemical attacks. Drones that can cloud an individual or small group of people. They'll think it was just dust or something, the thing zips off into the sky, and the linings of their lungs starts dissolving and they die.
Why does that make more sense than a bomb that just straight up kills a dude? Chemical agents are difficult and dangerous to synthesize, but you can get explosives anywhere there's a mining industry.
With chemical weapons, a tiny palm-sized drone can lift a deadly payload. And it is not hard to assemble a (very) large fleet of cheap micro-drones, so yeah.
Chemical weapons require some specialized knowledge but within that field it is not an impossible task. It is mostly the acquisition of the raw materials.
If you can do a drug synthesis you could probably synthesize a chemical weapon.
If you can do a drug synthesis you could probably synthesize a chemical weapon.
Especially since it is much easier to protect yourself against gas than it is to defend yourself against high explosives. Gas masks are cheap, explosives requires armored vehicles.
Nerve agents can kill you even with a gas mask. They absorb right through your skin.
That's still much easier to defend against than high explosives, and probably much harder to procure. If narco-terrorists can get blocks of C4 and cheap drones, why bother with the extra steps and international attention that a nerve agent would get you?
Nerve agents could be attached to much smaller delivery platforms. If you could build a drone the size of a mosquito you could use it to deliver a tiny, fatal dose of nerve agent to your target. No chemical explosive could match that level of miniaturization.
It may be sci fi at this point but it seems entirely possible to me. After all, mosquitoes exist and their behaviour is quite sophisticated. They’re able to locate mammals by detecting our breath, bite us to steal some blood, then fly away their eggs.
It may be sci fi at this point but it seems entirely possible to me. After all, mosquitoes exist and their behaviour is quite sophisticated. They’re able to locate mammals by detecting our breath, bite us to steal some blood, then fly away their eggs.
Even if we grant the possibility, which is a real courtesy, that still would be a lot more expensive than a Mavic with a Tupperware bomb. And for what? Dead is dead.
And worse still, using a nerve agent would draw a lot of unpleasant international attention. Why risk pissing off your large northern neighbor when they’ve been trained to ignore more normal types of violence you commit every day?
Look at this forum, the delivery of explosives via drone is consider an interesting novelty, not something that any other country really should do something about. Narco-terrorism is the norm in that part of the world, and we’re clearly used to it.
The first time a cartel uses an honest to god weapon of mass destruction, the response would be very different, with some serious calls for America to invade and sort the issue out itself. While it’s far from obvious if America would (or should) do that, why risk it when they’ll just totally ignore everything else?
Look at this forum, the delivery of explosives via drone is consider an interesting novelty, not something that any other country really should do something about. Narco-terrorism is the norm in that part of the world, and we’re clearly used to it.
The first time a cartel uses an honest to god weapon of mass destruction, the response would be very different, with some serious calls for America to invade and sort the issue out itself. While it’s far from obvious if America would (or should) do that, why risk it when they’ll just totally ignore everything else?
It may be expensive to develop but it need not be expensive to produce. Look at all of the technologies and products enabled by computers.
Sure, it cost a fortune to develop computers from nothing and miniaturize them to the scale we have today. But now anyone can grab a cheap RPi off the shelf and use it to build something that would’ve been amazingly difficult to do 50 years ago.
If we manage to develop drones and robots to the point where they’re mosquito sized, we could find a million uses for them. They could become so cheap weed buy them by the thousands and program them for whatever tasks we want. And of course they could be larger as well; wasp sized rather than mosquito.
I’m not expecting the cartels to develop this technology, of course. But I can envision how they’d use it and it’s pretty terrifying.
Sure, it cost a fortune to develop computers from nothing and miniaturize them to the scale we have today. But now anyone can grab a cheap RPi off the shelf and use it to build something that would’ve been amazingly difficult to do 50 years ago.
If we manage to develop drones and robots to the point where they’re mosquito sized, we could find a million uses for them. They could become so cheap weed buy them by the thousands and program them for whatever tasks we want. And of course they could be larger as well; wasp sized rather than mosquito.
I’m not expecting the cartels to develop this technology, of course. But I can envision how they’d use it and it’s pretty terrifying.
Shouldn't these drones be pretty easy to signal jam? I mean cartels don't really care about the law anyways.
at some point they’ll be autonomous, running off of IMUs and SLAM. there won’t be anything to jam.
Disclosure: I work for a company in this field.
They are easy to jam if you don't mind also not having GPS, Wifi and 3G/4G/5G service. You can do selective jamming but this is much more sophisticated
They are easy to jam if you don't mind also not having GPS, Wifi and 3G/4G/5G service. You can do selective jamming but this is much more sophisticated
More sophisticated actors can fly on vision alone.
Disclosure: I also work for a company in this field.
Disclosure: I also work for a company in this field.
Only if you see them coming; if you have to run the jammer at all times, that's just a homing beacon for drones.
You can run decoy ones as well. I think we’ll see a drone defense industry pop up soon
It exists, mostly defense contractors though.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/5/18169215/london-heathrow-g...
https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/5/18169215/london-heathrow-g...
Russia attempted to kill a dissenter in England with a toxic agent and all of Europe went up in arms. Presidents and prime ministers put out condemnations. Public opinion sharply turned against Russia.
The backlash to what you're suggesting would be insane if it actually happened.
The backlash to what you're suggesting would be insane if it actually happened.
How does this stop the next one? It’s not the first time Russia has done this — and they have done it in European countries.
[deleted]
> agent and all of Europe went up in arms.
Not arms as in weapons, arms as in failing their arms about.
Fat lot of good that'll do to prevent the next incident.
Not arms as in weapons, arms as in failing their arms about.
Fat lot of good that'll do to prevent the next incident.
Sure but that tends to work against States. Backlash against non-State groups like the PLO and IRA seems less effectual.
hammock(2)
I remember someone flying one full of meth into the side of the Tijuana Costco.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/border-baja-califo...
I always thought drones would bring down the violence in Mexico, since it would be easier to keep your distribution network under the radar.
If you don't have to recruit hundreds of people to actually drive the drugs across the border, and can fly it over the fence in the middle of the night, what would be the reason for anybody to be shooting anybody.
Whoever's turf you were operating in wouldn't even know you were operating on their turf because your whole operation could be just two white-collar-type guys keeping a really low-key presence. The rise of the narco-technocrats.
But, I guess it didn't go that way.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/border-baja-califo...
I always thought drones would bring down the violence in Mexico, since it would be easier to keep your distribution network under the radar.
If you don't have to recruit hundreds of people to actually drive the drugs across the border, and can fly it over the fence in the middle of the night, what would be the reason for anybody to be shooting anybody.
Whoever's turf you were operating in wouldn't even know you were operating on their turf because your whole operation could be just two white-collar-type guys keeping a really low-key presence. The rise of the narco-technocrats.
But, I guess it didn't go that way.
How come they don't use artillery to launch? Does it damage the product? Too hard to aim? Wonder if you could ship drugs by just mortar with radio transmitter embedded. Way greater capacity and practically undetectable at landing site unless you have the receiver.
I know they've used catapults.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/us/marijuana-catapult-trnd/in...
https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/us/marijuana-catapult-trnd/in...
> This is just the latest example of drug smugglers' ingenuity, or more accurately, the ingenuity of the authorities who caught them.
Talk about blowing smoke. Border patrol saw these guys using a catapult to hurl drugs over the border and took their catapult. Where's the "ingenuity" on the part of the authorities?
I think a catapult is a great idea. Now I want to design a pumpkin chucker that hurls a steerable projectile for extra precision.
Talk about blowing smoke. Border patrol saw these guys using a catapult to hurl drugs over the border and took their catapult. Where's the "ingenuity" on the part of the authorities?
I think a catapult is a great idea. Now I want to design a pumpkin chucker that hurls a steerable projectile for extra precision.
This is an oversimplification of what the drug cartels do. The Cartels are the only buyer and seller of significance in Mexico, two narco-technocrats couldn’t get enough cocaine to import to make a difference without their buy in
I think what you're saying makes sense. I just want to pull out the idea a bit more.
Mexico is a country with a massive informal economy. For every McDonalds that operates in the formal sector, there are millions of small business operators who are totally off the radar.
The cartel is the McDonalds. The narco-technocrats are the thousands of taco carts off the metro crammed into every corner of Mexico City.
Two technocrats, sure, they wouldn't break the bank. But it's not tremendously difficult to get a package across the Guatemalan border, drive it up to Tijuana, and have your cousin with a drone fly it across the border where your other cousin picks it up on the other side.
There's no overhead. There's no need to pay protection money. There's no need to pay off police. There's no psychos in your organization calling attention to you.
This is the same thing that happened with black tar heroin distribution in the United States. A low-key family operation run by guys from the same small town in Mexico. They were revolutionary because they flew completely under the radar. No guns, no violence. Just earning a buck to send home to mom and dad.
Ref: Dreamland by Sam Quinones
Mexico is a country with a massive informal economy. For every McDonalds that operates in the formal sector, there are millions of small business operators who are totally off the radar.
The cartel is the McDonalds. The narco-technocrats are the thousands of taco carts off the metro crammed into every corner of Mexico City.
Two technocrats, sure, they wouldn't break the bank. But it's not tremendously difficult to get a package across the Guatemalan border, drive it up to Tijuana, and have your cousin with a drone fly it across the border where your other cousin picks it up on the other side.
There's no overhead. There's no need to pay protection money. There's no need to pay off police. There's no psychos in your organization calling attention to you.
This is the same thing that happened with black tar heroin distribution in the United States. A low-key family operation run by guys from the same small town in Mexico. They were revolutionary because they flew completely under the radar. No guns, no violence. Just earning a buck to send home to mom and dad.
Ref: Dreamland by Sam Quinones
Gibson's Slamhounds are here.
Small armed drones could be the game-changer the AK-47 was. Before the AK-47, revolt against an army with machine guns was almost impossible. "Whatever happens, we have got ... The Maxim gun - and they have not." Post AK-47, the guerillas usually win, or at least can keep the struggle going on indefinitely.
The combination of drones for assassination and Bitcoin for payment could force everyone with money or power into a bunker or armored vehicle for the rest of their life.
The combination of drones for assassination and Bitcoin for payment could force everyone with money or power into a bunker or armored vehicle for the rest of their life.
Drones are easy to jam. The communication link and GPS are most obvious targets.
Progress marches on. Autonomous visual navigation have been available for some time. Face recognition can be done with smartphone hardware. Inertial guidance for drones is available but still a bit pricey.[1]
This is going to be a major problem for the golf industry. It's the ideal target environment - high-value targets, no place to take cover.
[1] https://www.uavnavigation.com/products/ahrs-imu/polar-300
This is going to be a major problem for the golf industry. It's the ideal target environment - high-value targets, no place to take cover.
[1] https://www.uavnavigation.com/products/ahrs-imu/polar-300
Nah, golf industry will be fine. If a technology is so advantageous, then it will eventually become the counter to itself. Imagine several drone swarming around you like a body guard and you would have several orbital layers for short/medium/long range protection.
Imagine a drone being so sophisticated that it can calculate the sniper shot gunning for you and can even deflect the bullet or take the direct hit for you. Same for suicidal bombs. If the enemy drone explode on impact, your drone can kamikaze theirs.
Imagine a drone being so sophisticated that it can calculate the sniper shot gunning for you and can even deflect the bullet or take the direct hit for you. Same for suicidal bombs. If the enemy drone explode on impact, your drone can kamikaze theirs.
That can just never work. Several drones swarming around you do will do bugger all against enough shrapnel, or against a shaped charge, or just a sufficiently heavy drone going fast enough. Or the drone could carry a chemical agent and kill you.
The economics of defence are such that kamikaze anti-drone drones won't work. Either they'll miss the vast majority of the time, or they will be hideously more expensive than the drone they're defending against.
The economics of defence are such that kamikaze anti-drone drones won't work. Either they'll miss the vast majority of the time, or they will be hideously more expensive than the drone they're defending against.
"The bomber will always get through". That remark was made about the big bombing campaigns of WWII, and the planned nuclear attacks of the 1950s and 1960s. Drone attacks are the same concept in miniature.
There no reason it can't use Google maps to travel and be autonomous with facial recognition.
Star-Tracker Algorithm for Smartphones and Commercial Micro-Drones -https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7070887/
The short distance drones can travel is a big problem, you can backtrack to the launch location.
Committing murder for money is mostly unheard of outside of Hollywood.
It happens but it's generally somewhat crazy people or people copying Hollywood. This is more the real reason it wont happen. Society doesn't like murder and will pull out all stops to discontinue it.
Star-Tracker Algorithm for Smartphones and Commercial Micro-Drones -https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7070887/
The short distance drones can travel is a big problem, you can backtrack to the launch location.
Committing murder for money is mostly unheard of outside of Hollywood.
It happens but it's generally somewhat crazy people or people copying Hollywood. This is more the real reason it wont happen. Society doesn't like murder and will pull out all stops to discontinue it.
Mexico is way past that point. Some of the drug cartels operate openly.
Drone swarms will definitely be a go-to standard in warfare soon. It has already been in use for a few years over in the ME.
Legalizing all drugs would kill these cartels almost instantly. People who do drugs do them anyway and find a way to even if they’re illegal. If drugs weren’t illegal all that money wouldnt end up in mexican cartels pockets.
This is absolutely not going to be the case. Assuming both the US and Mexico simultaneous legalized all drugs, what happens to all the illegal jobs the cartels currently have?
Their people, money and weapons don't vanish and what we see when cartels take a hit income is violence increases and the cartels look to other methods of making income using they're existing tools. Protection rackets and kidnappings are already used as supplemental income, these would only increase.
Now a long approach of gradual decriminalization and legalization may work, with the ability to operate legally the need to utilize violence decreases over time as it's generally bad for business.
Their people, money and weapons don't vanish and what we see when cartels take a hit income is violence increases and the cartels look to other methods of making income using they're existing tools. Protection rackets and kidnappings are already used as supplemental income, these would only increase.
Now a long approach of gradual decriminalization and legalization may work, with the ability to operate legally the need to utilize violence decreases over time as it's generally bad for business.
If their main source of income is cut off they will have to immediately downsize or it would all eat into the boss’s accumulated wealth. Reestablishing the cartel on kidnapping and other violent crime is not as lucrative as selling sniffy gold. If they start kidnapping in America is a different thing all together but doing it in Mexico would not yield enough money to keep the current operations - unless they kidnap every Mexican citizen or something like that... Closest move is to get involved directly into politics
Or they get into the "protection" and kidnapping racket even more than they are currently. Sure their size would probably decrease but the amount of violence would skyrocket. At least for several years. The basically control whole swathes of that. They wouldn't give that up without a fight.
Is that what happened at the end of prohibition? (Genuine question, I'm not well informed in this area.)
Hard to disentangle effects from other stuff that was going on. Prohibition was repealed in 1933, in the depths of the Depression. It was also the year before FDR signed a comprehensive crime-fighting bill that allowed FBI agents to carry guns and make arrests.
By pure numbers, crime did hit a 20th-century high in 1933, right after prohibition was repealed, and they didn't pass those numbers until the 1970s-early 1990s (and only just barely then). But this was also the economic nadir of the century. And the mechanism for the decline in organized crime was that many crime bosses were killed or imprisoned, so it could've been the crime bill. So yes, it is what happened at the end of prohibition, but it's hard to draw firm conclusions between the two.
By pure numbers, crime did hit a 20th-century high in 1933, right after prohibition was repealed, and they didn't pass those numbers until the 1970s-early 1990s (and only just barely then). But this was also the economic nadir of the century. And the mechanism for the decline in organized crime was that many crime bosses were killed or imprisoned, so it could've been the crime bill. So yes, it is what happened at the end of prohibition, but it's hard to draw firm conclusions between the two.
It wouldn't be nice for sure, but it would drastically slow down and change the magnitude. The thing is.. crime exists in most countries. What makes a big difference here is the amount of drug money coming into the cartels pockets, that type of money changes everything. We're talking of hundreds of billions of dollars a year, that's no pocket change. If money stops flowing in the cartels would have to switch to other types of operations, sadly still vicious and violent, but nothing like what they currently make.
Is there a way out that involves the cartels not going down fighting? Could a government sue for peace?
It definitely would not magically get rid of cartels overnight, but it'd cut off a huge source of money for them. If they start multiplying the number of violence-related revenue streams (kidnapping, protection rackets/extortion, murder-for-hire, arms snuggling), their image among people who were neutral towards them may decline, and maybe they'll start to be seen as much closer to nothing but pure terrorist/paramilitary organizations.
I don't know if that would start the process of gradual downsizing and elimination by security forces or if it'd instead first lead to a huge uptick in violence and perhaps civil war, but I feel like in the long-term it'd be much harder for most of them to hold onto as much money and power as they used to.
I'm absolutely not an expert in this area and could be horribly wrong, but I think this idea should at least be considered more seriously.
I don't know if that would start the process of gradual downsizing and elimination by security forces or if it'd instead first lead to a huge uptick in violence and perhaps civil war, but I feel like in the long-term it'd be much harder for most of them to hold onto as much money and power as they used to.
I'm absolutely not an expert in this area and could be horribly wrong, but I think this idea should at least be considered more seriously.
I'm curious about one thing: I keep hearing weird stories about small police forces and ultra-militarised police forces in the US for example, like tiny towns having surplus tanks and assault rifles.
Why/how are the cartels not just "put down" immediately with some assistance? Is there something deeper, like people being born into it or politicians much rather having drug money than a living population? I don't understand why there even needs to be any form of civil war, unless the cartels have embedded themselves deep enough to be similar to guerilla warfare-esque with innocent actors.
Why/how are the cartels not just "put down" immediately with some assistance? Is there something deeper, like people being born into it or politicians much rather having drug money than a living population? I don't understand why there even needs to be any form of civil war, unless the cartels have embedded themselves deep enough to be similar to guerilla warfare-esque with innocent actors.
There are a lot of desperately poor young men in Mexico, and there are billions of dollars being thrown around in the drug industry. It's cheap to hire an army, and if you can get kids young enough you can turn them into psychopaths.
Take a cop in rural Mexico making like $15k/year, and he'd be absolutely insane to flush his and his family's life down the toilet to go up against these guys.
Cop in the US in one of those militarized police forces is making upwards of $70k, and isn't up against organized groups of psychopaths with armored vehicles and automatic weapons. Those cops are going after guys growing pot in the closet, and the occasional small, low-level drug org that isn't too dangerous.
Take a cop in rural Mexico making like $15k/year, and he'd be absolutely insane to flush his and his family's life down the toilet to go up against these guys.
Cop in the US in one of those militarized police forces is making upwards of $70k, and isn't up against organized groups of psychopaths with armored vehicles and automatic weapons. Those cops are going after guys growing pot in the closet, and the occasional small, low-level drug org that isn't too dangerous.
Wow, your response is literally "let them hold us hostage, it's safer than upsetting the status quo."
>Now a long approach of gradual decriminalization and legalization may work, with the ability to operate legally the need to utilize violence decreases over time as it's generally bad for business.
For the record I'm pro-legalization, but just flipping the status quo overnight isn't going to fly here.
Saying "just legalize all drugs" doesn't solve the problem, someone still has to make the drugs, can we just give all traffickers amnesty for past crimes and make their operations legal? Maybe? But it's not something to hand-wave away.
I don't have the answer but flippant comments about how easy it is to dismantle cartels, is offensive to anyone who has fought to do such and likely a disservice to the intelligence of people running them.
For the record I'm pro-legalization, but just flipping the status quo overnight isn't going to fly here.
Saying "just legalize all drugs" doesn't solve the problem, someone still has to make the drugs, can we just give all traffickers amnesty for past crimes and make their operations legal? Maybe? But it's not something to hand-wave away.
I don't have the answer but flippant comments about how easy it is to dismantle cartels, is offensive to anyone who has fought to do such and likely a disservice to the intelligence of people running them.
No, it's not easy to dismantle cartels and that is because of how much money and power they amassed under the current status quo. But making drugs legal would definitely cut the cartels funding and they would eventually dwindle into obscurity and small time crime. The current power of the cartels is only due to the big money that are in the game, hundreds of billions of dollars a year!!
Why didn't all of these things happen when Prohibition was repealed?
That's actually a myth. During past government in Mexico drug cartels started kidnapping and stealing oil to the point that oil income was higher than drugs. There's an active case from Pemex against BASF and other Houston based company to buy oil from drug cartels at cheaper price.
We legalized weed and it didnt make a dent.
Theyre literally killing the competition for the avocado you bought yesterday.
Narcos are entrenched and not going anywhere anymore than Russian oligarchs.
Theyre literally killing the competition for the avocado you bought yesterday.
Narcos are entrenched and not going anywhere anymore than Russian oligarchs.
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/how-legali...
Cato report (2018) on the effects of marijuana legalization on border smuggling. It's had a large and direct impact on the market.
Cato report (2018) on the effects of marijuana legalization on border smuggling. It's had a large and direct impact on the market.
Indeed. In the US the focus is typically on the drugs that come north, but it’s not just dollars that flow back south, it’s also weapons, which further destabilize the drug producing/transit countries.
I wouldnt be surprised if drug cartels and weapon manufacturers lobby to keep the situation unchanged.
This is the most naive comment I have seen. You do not understand the cartels integration in all parts of life. They control the government. They control business.
The cartels will still be in businesses if the legal option included a 30% tax, as we see in California with the legal weed business.
I’ve read that the cartels have diversified their businesses enough that this is no longer true. Do you have a source?
Source for what?
Currently US dollars are entering the cartels pockets, big dollars and there’s no secret. And naturally they scaled up the operations because the demand is high. If drugs became legal demand would go down and it would cut into their operations “biggly”.
This is untrue, as drug cartels still make tons of weed to sell in areas where it’s already legalized.
Citation please? The profit that Colorado and other states are reporting makes it hard to believe the black market is even a shadow of its former self in those states.
In California, the black market is estimated as twice the size of the legal market (1). This is the natural result when you make it excruciatingly difficult to open legal businesses, and impose in some municipalities (including Los Angeles) north of 30% taxes on product with no break given for medical patients who might rely on this for their disease. There is also a lack of enforcement of illegal dispensaries, which contributes to there being at least 2835 illegal dispensaries compared to 873 licensed dispensaries state wide (2).
1. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-14/californ...
2. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-11/californ...
1. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-14/californ...
2. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-11/californ...
If they hadn't made it so expensive artificially then the illegal guys couldn't make enough profit to make it worth their time to sell illegally. The California canibus market is a terrible example of what a market should be.
Yes, just as they still smuggle tobacco products into areas where they are perceived to be excessively taxed. The problem is overtaxation, not the nature of the product.
Is that really a proven fact? Ending Prohibition didn't end the Mafia.
The fear of punishments probably keeps many kids / young adults off drugs. The fear of incarceration and a criminal record probably does more to keep people off drugs than actual incarceration.
I find the argument for legalizing drugs as some sort of a benevolent all-in-one solution a complete idiotic solution.
Drugs like Heroin, Meth, Cocaine, etc should absolutely be banned and IMV the scope and scale of punishments increased.
Humans are notoriously incompetent or weak-willed to make rational choices in many aspects. They are emotional, impulsive and irrational.
Imagine being able to obtain drugs at market prices and being able to sell to children in schools, illegally of course. Can you not see what is happening with alcohol?
Drugs are a social evil and must be dealt with. Legalization is not the solution. It will increase drug use exponentially.
I find the argument for legalizing drugs as some sort of a benevolent all-in-one solution a complete idiotic solution.
Drugs like Heroin, Meth, Cocaine, etc should absolutely be banned and IMV the scope and scale of punishments increased.
Humans are notoriously incompetent or weak-willed to make rational choices in many aspects. They are emotional, impulsive and irrational.
Imagine being able to obtain drugs at market prices and being able to sell to children in schools, illegally of course. Can you not see what is happening with alcohol?
Drugs are a social evil and must be dealt with. Legalization is not the solution. It will increase drug use exponentially.
The fear of punishment can be replaced with the fear of becoming a junkie and education can prevent that. Sure, some will become junkies and so be it, it's their life and that choice belongs to them. When I say legalizing drugs I don't mean encouraging them. Drugs like Heroin, Meth, Coke (and the list doesn't end here) are indeed dangerous and disgusting, but people still do them and the reason is because their lives are messed up or they themselves are messed up. If drugs were legal accessible junkies wouldn't need to turn into criminals.
With illegal drugs there is a great incentive by drug dealers to hook more and more people up and make them do whatever it takes to get their next dose. If the next dose is very easy to get and cheap I bet you'd either not see junkies come to light or a lot of them would be semi-functional and be on drugs throughout their lives without many of us not even be aware of it. The fear will come from seeing irresponsible people ruin their lives and not wanting to be one of them. Alcohol too has a high potential of abuse and yet not a large number of people abuse it as it was thought during the prohibition.
I actually work in the drone detection/jamming field.
My only surprise is that this sort of thing doesn't happen more often. We already see drones used for drug smuggling and privacy violations, as well as the use of drones to carry IED payloads.
Drones are an amazing tool but as with any tool, they can be used in nefarious ways.
My only surprise is that this sort of thing doesn't happen more often. We already see drones used for drug smuggling and privacy violations, as well as the use of drones to carry IED payloads.
Drones are an amazing tool but as with any tool, they can be used in nefarious ways.
I presume the cheapest protection would be fine netting.
Is there any indication of netting being used as protection against drones?
Or would netting be to obvious that there was a target worth targeting?
Is there any indication of netting being used as protection against drones?
Or would netting be to obvious that there was a target worth targeting?
Some of the more entertaining defenses I've seen are netting and actual hawks trained to snatch them out of the sky!
Nets tend to be a sort of one-hit thing, so if you miss you're out of luck. They're obviously not ideal around airports and other infrastructure.
Nets tend to be a sort of one-hit thing, so if you miss you're out of luck. They're obviously not ideal around airports and other infrastructure.
well up until the point where it is an aerosol attack. protection is probably going to be down to specialized sensor arrays and some form of ballistic counter but these solutions will be expensive and harder to deploy than the attack.
drones open the door to all sorts of malfeasance that used to require state level backing to accomplish and counters are only coming into play if not concept
drones open the door to all sorts of malfeasance that used to require state level backing to accomplish and counters are only coming into play if not concept
Has there been any progress with coming up with a system that can _reliably_ jam them?
I don't know if you could ever stop a low cost drone short of using a shotgun. Even if you had some sort of directed EMP technology, the drone could position itself along the correct precomputed vector from far away, cut off electric, and glide the bomb to the target silently.
Oh great: low budget stand-off weapons. This is not going to end well.
Its really not that easy to shoot a drone down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGLxKXtkHpY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGLxKXtkHpY
> the drone could position itself along the correct precomputed vector from far away, cut off electric, and glide the bomb to the target silently.
An octocopter/ordinary drone can't do this - their electric goes out and they fall from the sky.
For a glider you'd need an actual flyable airplane model (something like this: https://laughingsquid.com/a-15-foot-long-radio-controlled-ai...), and these are expensive as fuck - a single engine alone will run up well into four digit range, if not five digits (something like the JetCat P1000). And at that point, you could also go ahead and buy an outright RPG, should be far cheaper to acquire depending where you are, or buy a couple junker cars, load them up with fertilizer bombs, and distribute them where one expects the target.
An octocopter/ordinary drone can't do this - their electric goes out and they fall from the sky.
For a glider you'd need an actual flyable airplane model (something like this: https://laughingsquid.com/a-15-foot-long-radio-controlled-ai...), and these are expensive as fuck - a single engine alone will run up well into four digit range, if not five digits (something like the JetCat P1000). And at that point, you could also go ahead and buy an outright RPG, should be far cheaper to acquire depending where you are, or buy a couple junker cars, load them up with fertilizer bombs, and distribute them where one expects the target.
This is wrong.
ISIS used[1] the X-UAV Talon. This is a off-the-shelf 1.7M wingspan drone plane available for about $150 without electronics (which are around $50-$200 depending on how elaborate you want to get).
It's capable of 100km+ flights[3].
Here's a pic of one after being shot down in Iraq[4]
[1] https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/commercial-dro...
[2] https://au.banggood.com/X-UAV-Talon-EPO-1718mm-Wingspan-V-ta...
[3] https://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/100km-in-the-x-uav-talo...
[4] https://armamentresearch.com/islamic-state-unmanned-aerial-v...
ISIS used[1] the X-UAV Talon. This is a off-the-shelf 1.7M wingspan drone plane available for about $150 without electronics (which are around $50-$200 depending on how elaborate you want to get).
It's capable of 100km+ flights[3].
Here's a pic of one after being shot down in Iraq[4]
[1] https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/commercial-dro...
[2] https://au.banggood.com/X-UAV-Talon-EPO-1718mm-Wingspan-V-ta...
[3] https://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/100km-in-the-x-uav-talo...
[4] https://armamentresearch.com/islamic-state-unmanned-aerial-v...
Glad you posted this, was also going to post the images of the Skywalker X8 discovered in Syria and Mosul.
https://dronecenter.bard.edu/files/2016/12/Drones-in-Iraq-an...
https://dronecenter.bard.edu/files/2016/12/Drones-in-Iraq-an...
> An octocopter/ordinary drone can't do this - their electric goes out and they fall from the sky.
Since you lack all imagination, the drone could position itself directly above the target before cutting off the engines and fall silently.
Since you lack all imagination, the drone could position itself directly above the target before cutting off the engines and fall silently.
Reliably jamming drone comms would also jam all other radio based systems in the area. You could try to narrow your beam, but that could lead to evasive pattern dodge manouvers, and would be harder against a swarm of the things. Even then, the drones could get by with extremely crude, near ballistic autonomy (erraticly fly 500m in that compass direction and detonate on the moving blob near the pool).
You can jam signals they rely on, like GPS and cellular, but there are already drones that are capable of flying on vision alone, so no.
INS chips providing enough precision for autonomous operation over last few kilometers are rather cheap nowadays too.
A small-ish plane frame could easily deliver a grenade from sleepy suburbs 10km straight to the Oval Office with only few minutes of warning (assuming somebody could actually detect it in time at all). We're just lucky nobody seems to be bothered to do that.
A small-ish plane frame could easily deliver a grenade from sleepy suburbs 10km straight to the Oval Office with only few minutes of warning (assuming somebody could actually detect it in time at all). We're just lucky nobody seems to be bothered to do that.
Well, if you managed to detect and track an incoming drone you could ‘jam’ its camera with a high-powered laser - or something that threw up a curtain of flares or burning magnesium, or whatever.
Does that work for a fleet of 10 drones? 100 drones? 1,000 drones?
A drone swarm dropping hand grenades is like targeted artillery. Experience from WW 1 is that it's straightforward to defend against artillery fire, just retreat into a shelter. A target that's worth five dozen drones with grenades can afford a bunker.
So simple in your scenario... The target just needs to jump in their nearest bunker, better hope they happen to be attacked outside their bunker eh?
Not sure why you're being downvoted. Legitimate concern.
strong narrow fabric jams the rotors.
there was a hunter drone product doing exactly that from above. can't google it now, maybe there was no business.
there was a hunter drone product doing exactly that from above. can't google it now, maybe there was no business.
As I read the article, there was not actually a single confirmed death by explosive armed drone.
I suspect that ultimately it’s likely impractical To kill people by drone as compared, on a cost basis, to other more pedestrian means of killing people.
Drones may be cheap, but drones that can lift more than 2 kilos aren’t. The logistics of getting a drone near enough to the intended target to kill them are going to be hard. While the “cool” factor is high, I suspect guns, bombs, hard men, threats and bribes are more efficient.
I suspect that ultimately it’s likely impractical To kill people by drone as compared, on a cost basis, to other more pedestrian means of killing people.
Drones may be cheap, but drones that can lift more than 2 kilos aren’t. The logistics of getting a drone near enough to the intended target to kill them are going to be hard. While the “cool” factor is high, I suspect guns, bombs, hard men, threats and bribes are more efficient.
High value targets will justify expenditure of more resources. For most targets a few men with AK-47s might do the trick, but for the well protected target this would be a pretty decent strategy.
It certainly would strike fear into the hearts of men otherwise protected against more pedestrian threats, which is probably part of the point.
It certainly would strike fear into the hearts of men otherwise protected against more pedestrian threats, which is probably part of the point.
This is exactly how drones were used in Syria as I understood. To attack otherwise protected targets or strike fear.
To attack Russian bases they even use swarms of suicide planes: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2018/01/12/the_poor_man...
To attack Russian bases they even use swarms of suicide planes: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2018/01/12/the_poor_man...
So how will a drone attack me in my house? Mind you my house is not a hard target but is air conditioned, so I keep the doors and windows shut. How will a drone attack me in my car? I don’t have a great car, but I’m pretty sure it can outrun an off the shelf quadcopter. So assuming I’m safe in my home and in my car, I guess other opportunities exist to kill me, but you need to have an operator ready with a drone in proximity. It just doesn’t make sense.
Admittedly, drones with IEDs can be used as a terror device, to kill someone in a group of people, but as a targeted means of killing I can’t imagine it being better than a mortar or RPG.
Admittedly, drones with IEDs can be used as a terror device, to kill someone in a group of people, but as a targeted means of killing I can’t imagine it being better than a mortar or RPG.
Ask Ukraine how they lost billions in ammunition due to a incendiary grenade dropped with a regular drone.
Someone does not need to kill you in your vehicle or your house -- they can start a major fire while you are in there, drop a defensive hand grenade while you're playing with your family in the back yard, touch you with some high voltage wires, dust you in some ultra-potent synthetic opioid.
A lot of people DO leave their windows open, and it is beyond the point anyway, as windows can be blasted away with the first drone, and while you naturally will inveatigate, the second drone will get you -- just immagine 4 AM, you are sleeping, boom the first drone blasts your windows open, 5 seconds later the next one detonates a defensive grenade in your bedroom.
This is obviously for higher value targets, but I'd say an assasin has a much greater chance of evading capture from a mile away, than doing the deed in person.
Someone does not need to kill you in your vehicle or your house -- they can start a major fire while you are in there, drop a defensive hand grenade while you're playing with your family in the back yard, touch you with some high voltage wires, dust you in some ultra-potent synthetic opioid.
A lot of people DO leave their windows open, and it is beyond the point anyway, as windows can be blasted away with the first drone, and while you naturally will inveatigate, the second drone will get you -- just immagine 4 AM, you are sleeping, boom the first drone blasts your windows open, 5 seconds later the next one detonates a defensive grenade in your bedroom.
This is obviously for higher value targets, but I'd say an assasin has a much greater chance of evading capture from a mile away, than doing the deed in person.
> I’m pretty sure it can outrun an off the shelf quadcopter.
You need to know you're running from something to run from it. Do you have set of mirrors or cameras to conveniently monitor what's happening above your car?
You need to know you're running from something to run from it. Do you have set of mirrors or cameras to conveniently monitor what's happening above your car?
A drone need not enter a home to cause havoc within. I do not believe the assumption that one is safe within a home/car is a viable one.
To discuss specific implementations of an attack would seem to violate both a personal code and what I imagine to be the spirit of HN.
To discuss specific implementations of an attack would seem to violate both a personal code and what I imagine to be the spirit of HN.
> violate both a personal code and what I imagine to be the spirit of HN.
Thanks for throwing up the Ethics flag.
Discussing/brainstorming this in a public forum is volunteering your brainpower in support of murderers.
Thanks for throwing up the Ethics flag.
Discussing/brainstorming this in a public forum is volunteering your brainpower in support of murderers.
> Discussing/brainstorming this in a public forum is volunteering your brainpower in support of murderers.
If you think that you in a few moments on the back of a napkin will come up with something that someone funded and fuelled by an ideology that they are willing to die for can't with months of planning, then that's arrogance of an epic scale. This is as ridiculous as don't talk about hacking/spoofing/phishing because otherwise the bad guys won't figure it out.
If you think that you in a few moments on the back of a napkin will come up with something that someone funded and fuelled by an ideology that they are willing to die for can't with months of planning, then that's arrogance of an epic scale. This is as ridiculous as don't talk about hacking/spoofing/phishing because otherwise the bad guys won't figure it out.
A worldwide forum discussion among dozens of creative people out to one-up one another on clever strategies for killing another human may well put an effective idea in front of someone who might put it into practice.
There are occasions for discussing mechanisms by which one might construct such a weapon. I feel that this moment isn't one of them. Just because we can talk about it (and must be willing to defend the right to talk about it) doesn't mean that we should do so in this context.
There are occasions for discussing mechanisms by which one might construct such a weapon. I feel that this moment isn't one of them. Just because we can talk about it (and must be willing to defend the right to talk about it) doesn't mean that we should do so in this context.
This is absurd. How are we supposed to discuss mitigation strategies for a problem if we can't talk about the problem?
This is a total head in the sand mentality.
This is a total head in the sand mentality.
> A worldwide forum discussion among dozens of creative people out to one-up one another on clever strategies for killing another human may well put an effective idea in front of someone who might put it into practice.
You mean writers forums?
You mean writers forums?
> so I keep the doors and windows shut
Got armored glass? If no, then two drones will do the trick.
> I don’t have a great car, but I’m pretty sure it can outrun an off the shelf quadcopter.
Not if you stop at stop lights.
More realistically, the thing that gets VIPs assassinated is a predictable schedule. Assassination drones up the ante quite a bit, because one can park a drone in the bushes by your favorite coffee shop in the off chance that you’ve decided to get a latte today, while it’s much harder to successfully hide men with guns in a similar position.
> but as a targeted means of killing I can’t imagine it being better than a mortar or RPG.
I think you’re probably right that an RPG shot at your vehicle is worse for your survival odds, but I think you’re missing the element of risk. The problem with assassinating someone with an RPG is that you’ve got to get within shooting-back range. The chances of you getting shot before or after starting an assassination attempt is pretty high, which means that a successful defensive strategy is to create a wide cordon around the VIP to make attempts too risky. With a drone you don’t have to be anywhere close to the target, which allows for you to make an attempt on a hypothetical VIP with no personal risk whatsoever. If they spot your drone and shoot it down, you’re only out a cheap drone and some explosives, which is much better than getting shot at personally.
Again, for a soft target this is silly, men with guns are used to hurt and terrorize soft targets the world over; they’re cheap and reliable. But as a means to harass hardened targets, drones create new possibilities.
Got armored glass? If no, then two drones will do the trick.
> I don’t have a great car, but I’m pretty sure it can outrun an off the shelf quadcopter.
Not if you stop at stop lights.
More realistically, the thing that gets VIPs assassinated is a predictable schedule. Assassination drones up the ante quite a bit, because one can park a drone in the bushes by your favorite coffee shop in the off chance that you’ve decided to get a latte today, while it’s much harder to successfully hide men with guns in a similar position.
> but as a targeted means of killing I can’t imagine it being better than a mortar or RPG.
I think you’re probably right that an RPG shot at your vehicle is worse for your survival odds, but I think you’re missing the element of risk. The problem with assassinating someone with an RPG is that you’ve got to get within shooting-back range. The chances of you getting shot before or after starting an assassination attempt is pretty high, which means that a successful defensive strategy is to create a wide cordon around the VIP to make attempts too risky. With a drone you don’t have to be anywhere close to the target, which allows for you to make an attempt on a hypothetical VIP with no personal risk whatsoever. If they spot your drone and shoot it down, you’re only out a cheap drone and some explosives, which is much better than getting shot at personally.
Again, for a soft target this is silly, men with guns are used to hurt and terrorize soft targets the world over; they’re cheap and reliable. But as a means to harass hardened targets, drones create new possibilities.
>but I’m pretty sure it can outrun an off the shelf quadcopter.
depends which shelf... $544 buys you a drone that goes 145 mph. $322 for 99 mph.
depends which shelf... $544 buys you a drone that goes 145 mph. $322 for 99 mph.
>So how will a drone attack me in my house?
With enough explosives to reduce it to rumble from outside?
>How will a drone attack me in my car? I don’t have a great car, but I’m pretty sure it can outrun an off the shelf quadcopter.
It can only outrun it if (a) it can see/hear it coming, (b) it can move freely (e.g. not in congestion)
With enough explosives to reduce it to rumble from outside?
>How will a drone attack me in my car? I don’t have a great car, but I’m pretty sure it can outrun an off the shelf quadcopter.
It can only outrun it if (a) it can see/hear it coming, (b) it can move freely (e.g. not in congestion)
Do you never leave your house or go close to the windows? If you do, there you go.
Do you never run into traffic or stop at red lights in your car? If you do, there you go.
I wouldn't assume you'd always see the drone coming, even if you hear it it can probably strike in just a few seconds, before you realize what it is.
If the attacker wants to avoid being identified a remotely controlled drone is better than an RPG, and probably more accurate as well.
Do you never run into traffic or stop at red lights in your car? If you do, there you go.
I wouldn't assume you'd always see the drone coming, even if you hear it it can probably strike in just a few seconds, before you realize what it is.
If the attacker wants to avoid being identified a remotely controlled drone is better than an RPG, and probably more accurate as well.
For some it will be the perfect terrorist tool, tools that cause terror do not necessarily need to always kill.
Seems like more hassle than a mortar for about the same effect?
You can’t order a mortar on alibaba, and it requires much more training to use it effectively than flying a drone.
Mortars are also large and heavy and require a crew to serve as well as spotters to direct fire which means you need to have people closer to your target and working communications.
All of this complicates the logistics considerably which makes them less effective and more dangerous to their operators.
Effective mortar attacks can be fairly easily countered in the long term by jamming radios, cutting brush and removing other natural hiding spots and by killing experienced mortar crews.
Drones can be piloted by nearly anyone and with basic consumer grade equipment they can also be piloted from anywhere in the world as long as you have an internet connection.
Mortars are also large and heavy and require a crew to serve as well as spotters to direct fire which means you need to have people closer to your target and working communications.
All of this complicates the logistics considerably which makes them less effective and more dangerous to their operators.
Effective mortar attacks can be fairly easily countered in the long term by jamming radios, cutting brush and removing other natural hiding spots and by killing experienced mortar crews.
Drones can be piloted by nearly anyone and with basic consumer grade equipment they can also be piloted from anywhere in the world as long as you have an internet connection.
> You can’t order a mortar on alibaba
Well you can’t order C4 on Alibaba either. But if you can get C4 you can likely get a mortar.
Well you can’t order C4 on Alibaba either. But if you can get C4 you can likely get a mortar.
You can get C4 much more easily than you think plastic explosive has a ton of civilian uses from demolition to mining and oil and gas.
Mortars and mortar rounds on the other hand aren’t as easy to get and require trained crews to employ.
Mortars and mortar rounds on the other hand aren’t as easy to get and require trained crews to employ.
A mortar tube without training is nothing more than an exciting way to get yourself and your mates killed.
Mortars also have the nasty habit of drawing counter-battery fire, which occasionally leaves you short of a mortar and mortar crew. Drones are much lower risk to the operator, which is exactly why the US uses them too.
I’m not sure cartels have much trouble finding military hardware or people trained to use it
Believe it or not they do, small arms are much easier to get than heavy weapons they also are much easier to use. The cartels ironically rely on a lot of weapons coming in from the US especially as the remnants of Cold War era proxy wars in central and South America die out and they can no longer benefit from both the US and the former USSR dumping enough weaponry to invade Europe into the jungles.
Weapons don’t grow on trees, they are easy to get as long as there are conflicts in the region which are sponsored by superpowers or other patrons with sufficient resources that facilitate those shipments once those end they become rarer and rare.
Weapons don’t grow on trees, they are easy to get as long as there are conflicts in the region which are sponsored by superpowers or other patrons with sufficient resources that facilitate those shipments once those end they become rarer and rare.
Smack the back of a mortar round of pavement, and you now have an impact grenade. Hang that under a drone, and you have a way to drop impact grenades on unsuspecting targets from an altitude high enough that the drone can’t be detected visually.
ISIS was doing just that a few years ago. There were/are plans floating around on the Internet for stabilizing fins for common mortar rounds - 3D print those, and you’re 90% of the way there.
ISIS was doing just that a few years ago. There were/are plans floating around on the Internet for stabilizing fins for common mortar rounds - 3D print those, and you’re 90% of the way there.
I agree that this article is talking about drones because it's newsish, where bribery and guns are less so.
But, that's not really how the economics of violence works. It's more of a whatever-works, and whatever you can get your hands on element. Guns, bombs, hard men, threats and bribes are still in use. Infantry still exists, even though ICBMs exist. They don't have to choose.
This is quasi military conflict we are talking about. Air power, however meager is a game changer in military conflict. At the fully militarized level, drones have seen a lot of use. They can be deployed everywhere that full air power is impractical, either for tactical or political reasons. A drone base can be orders of magnitude smaller than a traditional air base, even a floating one.
A 2kg payload (or even 200g) is enough to carry a grenade. Grenades kill. It seems likely that drones will be used this way.
But, that's not really how the economics of violence works. It's more of a whatever-works, and whatever you can get your hands on element. Guns, bombs, hard men, threats and bribes are still in use. Infantry still exists, even though ICBMs exist. They don't have to choose.
This is quasi military conflict we are talking about. Air power, however meager is a game changer in military conflict. At the fully militarized level, drones have seen a lot of use. They can be deployed everywhere that full air power is impractical, either for tactical or political reasons. A drone base can be orders of magnitude smaller than a traditional air base, even a floating one.
A 2kg payload (or even 200g) is enough to carry a grenade. Grenades kill. It seems likely that drones will be used this way.
There must be a reason then that these drones don’t feature in death tallies? Death by friendly fire far far exceeds lethality of these drones worldwide.
They’ve been in documented use over 7 years at this point. Why are they less effective than Facebook posts at killing people?
They’ve been in documented use over 7 years at this point. Why are they less effective than Facebook posts at killing people?
Hand grenade toting drones more or less came of age during the ISIS shenanigans and Syrian civil war. Both those conflicts are/were hot enough and had enough state resources pumped in that you had guys taking pot shots at each other with AGTMs. Basically the other sources of casualties were too much background noise for drones to be noteworthy.
When a cooler conflict comes around, think whatever the 2020s, 2030s equivalent of the troubles is, drones will certainly rack up a much greater market share of the casualties by virtue of the lower background noise. They just aren't that useful in a "low but still tons of real armaments around for use" intensity conflict.
When a cooler conflict comes around, think whatever the 2020s, 2030s equivalent of the troubles is, drones will certainly rack up a much greater market share of the casualties by virtue of the lower background noise. They just aren't that useful in a "low but still tons of real armaments around for use" intensity conflict.
The Iranians dropped hand grenades from hobby grade remote control planes in the 80s. This idea is definitely not new.
It just doesn’t work very well.
It just doesn’t work very well.
Quite likely because the logistics aren’t there yet and even more so because actual weapons are available everywhere.
Drones still require someone to turn them into weapons going after bomb makers is an extremely effective strategy because while there are a million guides on the internet on how to make an IED or a suicide vest the actual amount of people capable of making them is extremely small the world isn’t HN.
Drones still require someone to turn them into weapons going after bomb makers is an extremely effective strategy because while there are a million guides on the internet on how to make an IED or a suicide vest the actual amount of people capable of making them is extremely small the world isn’t HN.
What do you mean the logistics aren’t there yet? Drones are used daily by bad guys for recon purposes.
These bad guys are groups with caches of weapons and skilled bomb makers in their numbers.
Why in 7 years havent They just put the two together?
What in our arm chair analysis are we overlooking?
These bad guys are groups with caches of weapons and skilled bomb makers in their numbers.
Why in 7 years havent They just put the two together?
What in our arm chair analysis are we overlooking?
I think you greatly over estimate the number of competent bomb makers considering just how effective taking them out has been.
Much of the military equipment in circulation is decades old, you have RPGs from the 70’s being in use.
The logistics for drones isn’t there yet, the human capital isn’t there yet either I would give it 5-10 more years till these drones will be prevalent in nearly every conflict.
Much of the military equipment in circulation is decades old, you have RPGs from the 70’s being in use.
The logistics for drones isn’t there yet, the human capital isn’t there yet either I would give it 5-10 more years till these drones will be prevalent in nearly every conflict.
car bombs are an unfortunately regular thing in this world (e.g. Azaz last month). Along with suicide vest wearers (Afghanistan most recently) and of course the IEDs designed to avoid detection and jamming in Iraq.
In each of these theatres we have documented heavy use of drones for recon.
The problem is nothing to do with logistics or skillset.
Hobby grade drones (even the heavy lift types which can manage 20kg payload) are not viable weapons. Their payload is too small, their accuracy too imprecise in practice and the economics of a stolen car’s payload being 1000x that of a medium-large hobby drone renders these a plot line in a movie rather than a real thing.
Age of military equipment has nothing to do with anything.
In each of these theatres we have documented heavy use of drones for recon.
The problem is nothing to do with logistics or skillset.
Hobby grade drones (even the heavy lift types which can manage 20kg payload) are not viable weapons. Their payload is too small, their accuracy too imprecise in practice and the economics of a stolen car’s payload being 1000x that of a medium-large hobby drone renders these a plot line in a movie rather than a real thing.
Age of military equipment has nothing to do with anything.
> At the fully militarized level, drones have seen a lot of use.
For sure. ISIS and Syrian insurgents have used them for targeting and dropping what are essentially hand grenades with fins on them.
The "Not-Russians" fighting in Ukraine used them ruthlessly effective artillery spotting. At least one UKR armoured column was halted due to extremely effective on-target artillery fires.
For sure. ISIS and Syrian insurgents have used them for targeting and dropping what are essentially hand grenades with fins on them.
The "Not-Russians" fighting in Ukraine used them ruthlessly effective artillery spotting. At least one UKR armoured column was halted due to extremely effective on-target artillery fires.
I'm always torn about articles like this. The fact the headline is a lie makes me want to flag it but the content itself is interesting enough I would have read it without a clickbait title. I wish HN had guidance on this topic.
HN guidelines [1] do mention: “please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait”.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I'm of the opinion that if the headline is a lie, then the thread should be flagged; no matter how interesting the content. Lying shouldn't be rewarded.
But then again, I don't have flagging rights yet, so who am I to judge?
But then again, I don't have flagging rights yet, so who am I to judge?
> drones that can lift more than 2 kilos aren’t
A M-67 fragmentation grenade weighs 400g, with a lethal radius of 5 meters.
A bullet still obviously remains cheaper than a single-use drone + grenade + modifications to it.
A M-67 fragmentation grenade weighs 400g, with a lethal radius of 5 meters.
A bullet still obviously remains cheaper than a single-use drone + grenade + modifications to it.
I don't know. How many attacks happen that have a budget in the thousands of dollars (that's what I ballpark the price of a load bearing drone to be)? I presume a lot. Another way to look at it is, how much does personal protection cost? Bodyguards, etc. If your attack methods are cheaper and at least comparably effective, they're good.
Considering IED drone effectiveness, I think it's just a question of developing tactics and maybe custom tech. It doesn't sound complicated to have a drone descend vertically at such high speeds that even if you notice it and disable its motors it's too late; fuse set to airburst. Exciting time to be a narco weapons engineer.
Considering IED drone effectiveness, I think it's just a question of developing tactics and maybe custom tech. It doesn't sound complicated to have a drone descend vertically at such high speeds that even if you notice it and disable its motors it's too late; fuse set to airburst. Exciting time to be a narco weapons engineer.
You can give a pistol and a few hundred dollars to many assassins/sicario in Mexico
Drone isn't necessarily a quadcopter. It can be an RC plane, too, and those can be cheap in larger sizes, although they are more difficult to fly accurately. I'm actually surprised this isn't more prevalent - any teenager could do it, if they had access to explosives, which teenagers in war zones (current or past) typically do. And so do adults, of course.
Truly we are blessed with unequal distribution of technical skill between the terrorists and the rest of us. If a real, world class engineer took up terrorism, they'd never be found and could do _a lot_ of damage.
Truly we are blessed with unequal distribution of technical skill between the terrorists and the rest of us. If a real, world class engineer took up terrorism, they'd never be found and could do _a lot_ of damage.
Killing specific people might be hard but harassing gathering and attacking to crowds don't need 2 kilos.
Honestly, the only explanation I can think of is that it is easy to see a quadrocopter fly and do its thing but it is actually hard to actually notice its real life impracticality unless you own one of them.
I don't know what specific model is shown in the picture but if it is a DJI Mavic Air 2 then it only weighs 570 gram and can only fly for 34 minutes.
When you compare a quadrocopter with a real life bomber then practically no bomber on earth is lighter than the bombs it is carrying. A B-52 can carry 30% of its weight in payload. So that would give us at most 171g for the bomb the Mavic Air 2 is carrying but even this is optimistic because it was not designed for this use case.
The idea of "cheap" drones carrying bombs is basically an urban legend. You can certainly build a good bombing drone for $5000 to $10000 and fly many missions and thereby kill hundreds of people with it but that same money can also buy guns and lots of ammo as well.
I don't know what specific model is shown in the picture but if it is a DJI Mavic Air 2 then it only weighs 570 gram and can only fly for 34 minutes.
When you compare a quadrocopter with a real life bomber then practically no bomber on earth is lighter than the bombs it is carrying. A B-52 can carry 30% of its weight in payload. So that would give us at most 171g for the bomb the Mavic Air 2 is carrying but even this is optimistic because it was not designed for this use case.
The idea of "cheap" drones carrying bombs is basically an urban legend. You can certainly build a good bombing drone for $5000 to $10000 and fly many missions and thereby kill hundreds of people with it but that same money can also buy guns and lots of ammo as well.
I understood it as they dont intend to get the drone back.
I did some searching, letter bombs were using 50g of RDX [1] and were able to kill a person so driving (and exploding) a drone with 171g of RDX into someone is more than enough.
If you take its 18km of reach (while I doubt the controls are able to go that far although with a 4g sim card this could be doable) you get a poor mans cruising "missile" for $1k. And there is nothing preventing (except the price) launching few of them.
I think that those drones are posing a real threat even more as probably the drug cartels have the money to realize it, if they can afford to build parallel cellular network [2], they surely can also perform this.
Their use case probably is not killing an average Joe but rather assassinations on high profile targets that are heavily guarded. And quite frankly I am really interested how bodyguards can tackle this as drone can literally fall from the sky, without any electricity being used so jamming (or frying electronics if feasible) wont work here. I think this is going to become a real nightmare in the future.
[1] 4g of RDX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6Qj1qSZDKg or 100g of "something" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_664jlLwqI
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-telecoms-cartels-s...
I did some searching, letter bombs were using 50g of RDX [1] and were able to kill a person so driving (and exploding) a drone with 171g of RDX into someone is more than enough.
If you take its 18km of reach (while I doubt the controls are able to go that far although with a 4g sim card this could be doable) you get a poor mans cruising "missile" for $1k. And there is nothing preventing (except the price) launching few of them.
I think that those drones are posing a real threat even more as probably the drug cartels have the money to realize it, if they can afford to build parallel cellular network [2], they surely can also perform this.
Their use case probably is not killing an average Joe but rather assassinations on high profile targets that are heavily guarded. And quite frankly I am really interested how bodyguards can tackle this as drone can literally fall from the sky, without any electricity being used so jamming (or frying electronics if feasible) wont work here. I think this is going to become a real nightmare in the future.
[1] 4g of RDX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6Qj1qSZDKg or 100g of "something" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_664jlLwqI
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-telecoms-cartels-s...
Hmm, isn't the idea of letter bombs that the bomb is literally within arm's length, whereas that sort of proximity for a noisy drone, keeping it close enough to a possibly moving target, while setting it off may not be super practical. It may be more realistic to get within, say, 10 meters?
Also, no way the FAA would issue waivers for this sort of mission. /s
Also, no way the FAA would issue waivers for this sort of mission. /s
Yes, this is certainly a part of problem constructing it.
I would imagine that replacing the motors and adding larger battery while keeping the control system shouldnt be an issue.
Also within an article there is a picture of a box with 4 motors, if lower part would be made from something like copper, it could be used as shaped charge [1] or adding shrapnel would also be an option. Or just make it to carry the normal hand grenade. The noise is surely an issue if you dont keep the distance, so I would imagine that you fly high over the target and then go into free fall.
In either case, this has a potential to become something really nasty.
Anyway, enough of this talk, it is surely an interesting technological challenge and interesting debate, but there are some really sick people on this planet and I dont want to give them any ideas. Also I bet there are some red lights blinking in some 3 letter agency somewhere :D :D :D
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge
I would imagine that replacing the motors and adding larger battery while keeping the control system shouldnt be an issue.
Also within an article there is a picture of a box with 4 motors, if lower part would be made from something like copper, it could be used as shaped charge [1] or adding shrapnel would also be an option. Or just make it to carry the normal hand grenade. The noise is surely an issue if you dont keep the distance, so I would imagine that you fly high over the target and then go into free fall.
In either case, this has a potential to become something really nasty.
Anyway, enough of this talk, it is surely an interesting technological challenge and interesting debate, but there are some really sick people on this planet and I dont want to give them any ideas. Also I bet there are some red lights blinking in some 3 letter agency somewhere :D :D :D
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge
A phone network is no use - latency means it’s useless for visual realtime control of a drone and you could just store a gps waypoint route on the flight controller and save the 4g modem weight if you meant as a mission control mechanism.
Achieving the precision of someone holding a letter would be remarkably challenging. Source: racing drone pilot for 5+ years.
Achieving the precision of someone holding a letter would be remarkably challenging. Source: racing drone pilot for 5+ years.
Forget visual - DIY (semi-)autonomous drones are doable today and could be pretty scary too. 4G may not be good enough for a human pilot flying FPV but it’s likely more than enough for a drone with GPS running Ardupilot to hone in on a target tagged with a planted transmitter or bugged phone.
Hobbyists have been documenting step by steps for this since 2008, nothing you’re suggesting is remotely new.
Why hasn’t it happened? What is the part of the movie plot imagination that doesn’t translate quite as well to real life?
Why hasn’t it happened? What is the part of the movie plot imagination that doesn’t translate quite as well to real life?
I'm not sure, tbh, though I suspect it's due somewhat to the general technical incompetence of (terrorist & gang) organizations. Bright people aren't exactly attracted to the idea of joining an organization which doesn't value life highly, and the bright ones that do enlist may be likely to be conscripted to work on other projects or killed by enemies/rivals. It's doable by hobbyists, but doing it with the scale/accuracy needed to be dangerous is a complicated endeavour that doesn't lend itself well to this kind of organization.
Fly a drone carrying a 500gram camera behind a tall building. You’ll learn the 6 things that stops this whole idea working. It’s consigned to the movie plots for the foreseeable future.
Think a lot of these comments don't take into consideration how cheap these drones can be made, especially if you have add a 3D printer into the mix.
Printing the air frame is a huge cost saver.
Cheap motors are everywhere, plenty of places to scavenge tiny hobby motors (doesn't have to fly super fast or lift 2000 grams)
Cheap arduino's for brains and motor control, not much to it.
You can get away with having a tiny lipo battery for powering the motors since it's a one way trip for the drone anyways...
With the right choice of materials you could get a drone BOM down to $100-150 [not included transmitter remote control] Needless to say, having a cartel budget you can really pump up production to few 100 a week if needed....
Making sumthing that's going to be used for a one way trip isn't hard, when your objective is to make a impact on target.
This is the new battlefield.
Printing the air frame is a huge cost saver.
Cheap motors are everywhere, plenty of places to scavenge tiny hobby motors (doesn't have to fly super fast or lift 2000 grams)
Cheap arduino's for brains and motor control, not much to it.
You can get away with having a tiny lipo battery for powering the motors since it's a one way trip for the drone anyways...
With the right choice of materials you could get a drone BOM down to $100-150 [not included transmitter remote control] Needless to say, having a cartel budget you can really pump up production to few 100 a week if needed....
Making sumthing that's going to be used for a one way trip isn't hard, when your objective is to make a impact on target.
This is the new battlefield.
Russians use drones at regular basis to throw[1] old ВОГ-17[0] grenades for automatic grenade launchers at Ukrainian soldier at Donbas.
[0]: https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%9E%D0%93-17 [1] https://www.slovoidilo.ua/2020/06/11/novyna/bezpeka/bojovyky...
[0]: https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%9E%D0%93-17 [1] https://www.slovoidilo.ua/2020/06/11/novyna/bezpeka/bojovyky...
You mean mostly Ukranian citizens against Ukrainian army which was unconstitutionally deployed against them? (note that I do not deny Russian involvement, but foreign involvement in civil wars is a really common matter)
Ukrainian army uses similar simple drones to throw grenades at rebels as well [0][1]. And interestingly enough Chinese develop similar drones [2], so I think they will be more and more common in future conflicts.
[0]: https://tvzvezda.ru/news/vstrane_i_mire/content/202052159-Rc... [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_Y810e2RXk [2]: https://www.defenseworld.net/news/24569/Weirdly_Shaped_Chine...
Ukrainian army uses similar simple drones to throw grenades at rebels as well [0][1]. And interestingly enough Chinese develop similar drones [2], so I think they will be more and more common in future conflicts.
[0]: https://tvzvezda.ru/news/vstrane_i_mire/content/202052159-Rc... [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_Y810e2RXk [2]: https://www.defenseworld.net/news/24569/Weirdly_Shaped_Chine...
Yep. Ukrainian Voluntary Army used them too. Ukrainian army bought military drones from Turkey, which did show in Syria.
BTW: 3 millions citizens of USSR were at Germany side in WWW2. Do you think it was civil war?
BTW: 3 millions citizens of USSR were at Germany side in WWW2. Do you think it was civil war?
Those Turkish drones have been bought in 2019 and AFAIK barely seen deployment for the fear of losing them. While the cheap drones are widely used by the army at the very least for reconnaissance. It's very hard to distinguish the Ukrainian army from the "volunteers", but the drone from the link in my previous comment was shot down just in 2020.
>BTW: 3 millions citizens of USSR were at Germany side in WWW2. Do you think it was civil war?
No, because those collaborationist have stayed mostly in the rear (e.g. see deployments of the SS "Galizien"), while on front lines fought forces from the invading countries. Also it's a matter of ratio. USSR was invaded by a 3.8M strong force, so even if you include those collaborationist, more than 50% of the invading force were foreigners. Meanwhile in today's DNR/LNR militia more than 90% of personnel are Ukrainian citizens (well, de jure, most of them don't think about themselves as Ukrainians anymore) and by a very strange coincidence in all recent prisoner swaps Ukrainian citizens were swapped for Ukrainian citizens. A very strange "Russo-Ukrainian war", don't you think?
To get a sense why it's a civil war, just watch footage from the early days of the conflict [0][1]. You can see that moving military forces have been actively blocked by simple folk who understood, that this unlawful deployment will simply result in Ukrainians killing other Ukrainians for political gain of the fresh-installed government.
BTW I do think that Chechen wars can be viewed as a civil war, even though the rebel forces were supported by Saudi and Kuwait money, and foreign mercenaries have actively participated in it.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xp4I-prrk0 [1]: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=039_1397631470
>BTW: 3 millions citizens of USSR were at Germany side in WWW2. Do you think it was civil war?
No, because those collaborationist have stayed mostly in the rear (e.g. see deployments of the SS "Galizien"), while on front lines fought forces from the invading countries. Also it's a matter of ratio. USSR was invaded by a 3.8M strong force, so even if you include those collaborationist, more than 50% of the invading force were foreigners. Meanwhile in today's DNR/LNR militia more than 90% of personnel are Ukrainian citizens (well, de jure, most of them don't think about themselves as Ukrainians anymore) and by a very strange coincidence in all recent prisoner swaps Ukrainian citizens were swapped for Ukrainian citizens. A very strange "Russo-Ukrainian war", don't you think?
To get a sense why it's a civil war, just watch footage from the early days of the conflict [0][1]. You can see that moving military forces have been actively blocked by simple folk who understood, that this unlawful deployment will simply result in Ukrainians killing other Ukrainians for political gain of the fresh-installed government.
BTW I do think that Chechen wars can be viewed as a civil war, even though the rebel forces were supported by Saudi and Kuwait money, and foreign mercenaries have actively participated in it.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xp4I-prrk0 [1]: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=039_1397631470
> I don't know what specific model is shown in the picture but if it is a DJI Mavic Air 2 then it only weighs 570 gram and can only fly for 34 minutes.
It's worth what, on the order of $1000? Strap 100 g of explosives to it, fly it to the target's face and detonate. It does not need 34 minutes of fly time.
It's worth what, on the order of $1000? Strap 100 g of explosives to it, fly it to the target's face and detonate. It does not need 34 minutes of fly time.
> So that would give us at most 171g
Grenades weigh about that much.
Grenades weigh about that much.
Technology progresses. What's hard today may be easy tomorrow.
It's tried and true: there's lots of drone footage out there of ISIS drones dropping bombs on vehicles and people. Here's a quick example of an attack on a vehicle: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/video-reportedl...
Actually, you can kill a person with a tiny drone the size of a hand palm, it only requires a tiny explosive to enter the forehead and kill the person.
While I agree with your premise, I would just like to point out that in Mexico, the number of missing people far outweigh the number of confirmed deaths. Not all cartel murders result in visible bodies on streets, and many of them do take care to hide their trails.
Unless you are trying to send a message, it seems to me that the best assassination would leave doubt even as to whether the person was dead, or how they died. I think the parent's observation is spot on.
[deleted]
There was that movie where the mobster told the incompetent hitman - "Just walk up to them, put the gun to their head and pull the trigger. That way, you can be sure."
Then he put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger (because his uzi attack had failed to kill the target)
Anyway, hard to beat the classics. Until the drone can lie in wait, identify the target itself, home in on it and explode at point blank range, well then we haven't gotten close to the traditional approach.
Then he put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger (because his uzi attack had failed to kill the target)
Anyway, hard to beat the classics. Until the drone can lie in wait, identify the target itself, home in on it and explode at point blank range, well then we haven't gotten close to the traditional approach.
Fly a drone to a location and conduct surveillance for the target.
ID target and activate drone bombing protocol.
ID target and activate drone bombing protocol.
Still have to track, home and estimate distance to target before exploding.
We know this is hard, witness that nobody has accomplished it yet?
We know this is hard, witness that nobody has accomplished it yet?
the costs are dropping
Silicon valley must love articles like this, the more to fund their Reagan "Star Wars" style digital border wall follies. Nothing like fear to direct billions of dollars in the wrong direction.
The next worst case scenario is autonomous drones, that do not require radio or gps inputs. Navigation can be done with crude inertial navigation systems and advancing AI can identify and fly to targets with increasing accuracy. Causing general chaos or exploding in crowds will not require AI though.
The only counter measure against those will then be an EMP system, Blinding lights to disable cameras, etc.
The next evolution for public speakers or gatherings would probably be completely online.
The only counter measure against those will then be an EMP system, Blinding lights to disable cameras, etc.
The next evolution for public speakers or gatherings would probably be completely online.
SLAM is already functional for drone navigation, more or less. As for blinding lights, that can be fixed by using many different sensors and wavelengths, as well as high-quality optics and imaging sensors with high flare resistance and high dynamic range.
As for EMPs, a drone that isn't remote controlled could feasibly be put in a Faraday cage. I'd make a prototype, but I don't really want to contribute to future assassinations.
There just aren't any good countermeasures, I'm afraid. I'd imagine fully online works well but even that is seriously limited.
As for EMPs, a drone that isn't remote controlled could feasibly be put in a Faraday cage. I'd make a prototype, but I don't really want to contribute to future assassinations.
There just aren't any good countermeasures, I'm afraid. I'd imagine fully online works well but even that is seriously limited.
There are plenty of countermeasures, but they're all active countermeasures - ex. a couple guys with shotguns, trained falcons, or your own anti-drone drones.
Yes, but kinetic countermeasures scale really badly. The definition of "drone" is also quite flexible here, a couple guys with shotguns, falcons, or your own anti-drones work fine against a few slow drones, badly against a few dozen slow flying drones, not at all against a few hundred slow flying drones, are essentially useless against one jet-powered drone (microjet engines are very cheap!) don't have a hope against a dozen fast flying drones, and are non-existent to a few hundred fast flying drones.
You'd pay around 2500$ for a 60lbf jet engine, and around 3000$ tops for the rest of the drone. That's around 5500-6000$, so for a hundred drones you'd pay 600 000$, or about 60% of the cost to train one soldier, and around one 0.8 millionths of the yearly US defence expenditure. For 100 drones. That means with the US defence budget you could make 120 000 000 such drones.
Sure, against the current crop of electric consumer drones, it's not much of an issue. But there's the tech to make a 500km/h drone that's fully autonomous and encased in a Faraday cage for less than 10 000$ a piece. That scares the crap out of me.
You'd pay around 2500$ for a 60lbf jet engine, and around 3000$ tops for the rest of the drone. That's around 5500-6000$, so for a hundred drones you'd pay 600 000$, or about 60% of the cost to train one soldier, and around one 0.8 millionths of the yearly US defence expenditure. For 100 drones. That means with the US defence budget you could make 120 000 000 such drones.
Sure, against the current crop of electric consumer drones, it's not much of an issue. But there's the tech to make a 500km/h drone that's fully autonomous and encased in a Faraday cage for less than 10 000$ a piece. That scares the crap out of me.
Bigger isn't necessarily better, here. There's a term for "small jet turbine powered autonomous suicide drone" already - "cruise missile" - and it's something that the US military has put a lot of work into stopping.
Small drones aren't really part of the same threat profile, near as I can tell.
Small drones aren't really part of the same threat profile, near as I can tell.
Cruise missiles generally have a diameter of around 70+ cm and a length of over 5 meters. They are also hideously expensive. These drones would have a diameter of around 15-25 cm, a length of a meter or two, a cost a hundredth of a cruise missile. Not comparable.
They're not bigger than a large camera drone, they're just much faster.
The US military has absolutely nothing that can stop a legion of a thousand or more "mini cruise missiles" such as these. Not a chance in hell.
They're not bigger than a large camera drone, they're just much faster.
The US military has absolutely nothing that can stop a legion of a thousand or more "mini cruise missiles" such as these. Not a chance in hell.
Cruise missiles currently target large things, these would be anti-personnel drones. I guess we could call them “knife missiles”?
I take it that's a culture reference, if it isn't then congratulations, you are in good company.
Umm people speak about lasers, energy based weapons and etc and etc. That problem was solved almost century ago. Flak cannons. The moment you have means to properly detect such cloud of problems, few flak cannons will rip them apart in seconds.
Low flying targets are hard to hit with flak I think. It's also hard to fire flak over the heads of a crowd at a public speaking event without hurting anybody.
No they wouldn't. Flak cannons don't work very well against low flying targets, they tend to just kill everyone on the ground.
Morso, flak cannons are less effective against small targets due to a smaller amount of debris.
Finally, there's no reason for the drones to be that close together. You can have them 30 meters apart , flying at an altitude of 20 meters or so. What then?
Finally, there's targeting. How are you going to target reliably a threat you've never seen before that's a similar size to a lot of birds?
Morso, flak cannons are less effective against small targets due to a smaller amount of debris.
Finally, there's no reason for the drones to be that close together. You can have them 30 meters apart , flying at an altitude of 20 meters or so. What then?
Finally, there's targeting. How are you going to target reliably a threat you've never seen before that's a similar size to a lot of birds?
For a state backed terrorist organization, the cost of drones could be even lower. Mass production and very low complexity of engineering will make it easy and cheap to produce drones. Add to that, the cost of failure and innovation is also very less, consequently, the use of drones will increase exponentially.
Just imagine what destruction a terrorist can create if he can launch a 100 drones, from miles away, to attack a filled stadium.
Just imagine what destruction a terrorist can create if he can launch a 100 drones, from miles away, to attack a filled stadium.
This drone craze is all because we have better batteries today. They should have thought of that when they invented such dangerous tech. /s (Law of unintended consequences)
In my layman opinion the correct solution would be a directed-energy weapon. The most obvious one that comes to mind would be a laser (or an array of lasers, for your dozen-fast flying drone scenario). Imagine the large collection of lights that point multi-directionally behind rockstars at concerts; except, in the future, these are all defensive lasers to defend against a worst-case scenario. Ha, would probably be very impractical except for defending heads of state and the like.
There're relatively easy countermeasures against that too: reflective paint and a rolling airframe. To be effective the laser needs to heat the airframe fast enough to cause structural damage before the energy is dissipated away. This is relatively easy when you're targeting a black plastic drone that remains stationary in the sky. It becomes orders of magnitude less effective when the drone is white or metallic and the point of contact moves all over the drone, particular because flying objects have natural air cooling to dissipate energy away.
Lasers have been demonstrated strong enough that those countermeasures are insufficient.
Bigger problem is, if you’re a politician and this scenario plays out during a rally, you just blinded your own supporters by shining a metal-melting laser at a shiny bauble while it was just above their heads.
Bigger problem is, if you’re a politician and this scenario plays out during a rally, you just blinded your own supporters by shining a metal-melting laser at a shiny bauble while it was just above their heads.
I haven't seen any demonstration of a laser destroying a rolling airframe with reflective coatings. The only practical demonstration I could find anywhere was a laser on a boat burning one single drone that was gray in color, from only about 800m away. And it took about ten seconds to do so.
Anyways, I'd love your source.
Anyways, I'd love your source.
I think I know the demo you’re talking about.
Most of my search results today are CGI propaganda pieces, the closest I can find is this from 2013, which is just a normal non-shiny and probably non-spinning missile, but from 1.5km and being destroyed 4s after launch: https://youtu.be/kgUnDeED9MM
Most of my search results today are CGI propaganda pieces, the closest I can find is this from 2013, which is just a normal non-shiny and probably non-spinning missile, but from 1.5km and being destroyed 4s after launch: https://youtu.be/kgUnDeED9MM
Maybe the best anti drone would be a swarm of drones you send off to crash into another drone? You could model the schooling from fish or birds, then just have enough of them fill the air with enough density to guarantee a hit of the target within the error of the range finding technology.
The problem is logistics. For this solution to work, the counter swarm should be more capable than the incoming swarm (faster, more AI capabilities, etc), and their quantity should be more than the incoming swarm.
You cannot have millions of drones everywhere, but the enemy just has to be lucky and send a million drones to attack you.
Also, you can have advanced tactics, like releasing the swarm, but programming them to hide and attack at random. With a good enough drone, you can create a almost impossible to evade booby-trap. Especially if you are in a war field.
You cannot have millions of drones everywhere, but the enemy just has to be lucky and send a million drones to attack you.
Also, you can have advanced tactics, like releasing the swarm, but programming them to hide and attack at random. With a good enough drone, you can create a almost impossible to evade booby-trap. Especially if you are in a war field.
The counter swarm can be cheaper/worse in some dimensions.
Smaller batteries since they don't need to travel far.
Nets or or even nothing instead of explosives, they need to stop drones not people.
The above two mean a lighter air frame.
The above 3 all mean more speed with the same motors (probably good) or less capable motors (seems like a bad plan).
Communications only need to be short range. Autonomy is plausible (but requires solving friendly fire).
Smaller batteries since they don't need to travel far.
Nets or or even nothing instead of explosives, they need to stop drones not people.
The above two mean a lighter air frame.
The above 3 all mean more speed with the same motors (probably good) or less capable motors (seems like a bad plan).
Communications only need to be short range. Autonomy is plausible (but requires solving friendly fire).
Communications can be jammed.
Counter drones like anti-missile missiles need to be bigger than one would think and require much more energy, because they need to be much faster and more maneuverable than the drones they are hitting. That means bigger motors, higher discharge batteries, and a stronger airframe.
I'm fairly certain they would be more expensive than the attackers drones, and you would need around two orders of magnitude more of them than the attacker.
Counter drones like anti-missile missiles need to be bigger than one would think and require much more energy, because they need to be much faster and more maneuverable than the drones they are hitting. That means bigger motors, higher discharge batteries, and a stronger airframe.
I'm fairly certain they would be more expensive than the attackers drones, and you would need around two orders of magnitude more of them than the attacker.
Why can't shotguns be automated. Building a personal "anti-aircraft/drone" gun should be feasible.
They are. They're usually called CRAM or CIWS on ships (Close in weapons system).[0] They are used as the last line of defense on modern warships against missiles and other threats.
Here you can see one of them in action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsVUISS8oHs
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system
Here you can see one of them in action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsVUISS8oHs
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system
They are also ineffective against more than a handful of threats.
They work okay against mortars and dumb munitions, though.
They work okay against mortars and dumb munitions, though.
Well, that scary to hear.
It really is. I came to this realization on the way back from a robotics competition, I was editing pictures I took with my new camera. I was reading articles about improvements we could make to SLAM, and editing pictures I took on the trip. When I realized that I had so much dynamic range that was able to completely remove haze and flaring from incredibly bright objects very close with a very middling lens, and combining that with the very impressive results in optical SLAM, it certainly gave me pause. Since then I've done quite a bit of research on this and I haven't been able to find any kind of usable countermeasure.
Hanging out on photographers forums, there's people who have been able to edit out details by substracting up to seven stops, with current consumer tech and optics, and improvements are coming every few months. Canon just demonstrated a sensor with 20 stops of dynamic range. Coupled with IR sensors, far UV sensors, and different wavelength filters to filter out lasers, there's really not much that can be done anymore. Except for kinetic or directed energy approaches, but they are incredibly expensive and incredibly vulnerable to saturation.
Hanging out on photographers forums, there's people who have been able to edit out details by substracting up to seven stops, with current consumer tech and optics, and improvements are coming every few months. Canon just demonstrated a sensor with 20 stops of dynamic range. Coupled with IR sensors, far UV sensors, and different wavelength filters to filter out lasers, there's really not much that can be done anymore. Except for kinetic or directed energy approaches, but they are incredibly expensive and incredibly vulnerable to saturation.
You cannot have active measures against an intelligent swarm of drones.
If drones are wired to explode in case of landing or power failure, active measures cannot be taken when the drones are over crowded areas or near high profile targets.
The alternative would be to destroy them from far away areas. And that is really really hard.
I guess we have to come up with special guns and ammunition that can create a wall of destruction for drones.
If drones are wired to explode in case of landing or power failure, active measures cannot be taken when the drones are over crowded areas or near high profile targets.
The alternative would be to destroy them from far away areas. And that is really really hard.
I guess we have to come up with special guns and ammunition that can create a wall of destruction for drones.
Of course you can. There’s always an escalation to beat the latest weapon.
There’s a myriad of possibility. Flak guns, modified chaff, glue, directed energy, hunter killer drones, etc.
There’s a myriad of possibility. Flak guns, modified chaff, glue, directed energy, hunter killer drones, etc.
kumarvvr's point was that you[1] have to consider the collateral damage of shooting down drones. If you make an enemy drone crash there's a possibility that it could crash in to a school or a hospital. That would be bad.
[1] The person defending something, not you. Your comment makes it clear you believe in defence at any cost.
[1] The person defending something, not you. Your comment makes it clear you believe in defence at any cost.
When you need to defend, it's too late.
If you're at a point where you need to take specific action in defense of a drone, you are already have crossed the rubicon where you are in conflict, and the outcome of that action may include harm to others. Any other constraints around the application of violence is wishful thinking at best -- there are too many variables in these scenarios.
The obvious solution that will happen is heavier licensure requirements and criminalization of unlicensed operation. You'll have toys and professional devices, and there will be a presumption that a drone is bad unless proven otherwise.
If you're at a point where you need to take specific action in defense of a drone, you are already have crossed the rubicon where you are in conflict, and the outcome of that action may include harm to others. Any other constraints around the application of violence is wishful thinking at best -- there are too many variables in these scenarios.
The obvious solution that will happen is heavier licensure requirements and criminalization of unlicensed operation. You'll have toys and professional devices, and there will be a presumption that a drone is bad unless proven otherwise.
Good point.
You forgot one: shotguns. The most reliable means to take out a drone might be some good old fashioned birdshot.
And what about good old water cannons? I can't imagine how the drone's rotor would be able to generate predictable lift when hit by a lot of water.
Water canons would work too, but only for fixed positions. Shotguns are pretty light, and can do double duty against more common threats simply by swapping out the ammunition from birdshot to buckshot.
Water cannons have a very limited range. Not good for saturation attacks.
Netting seems like the cheap, reasonable option.
[deleted]
I've been ghoulishly interested in the various US poorly-regulated militia since Malheur, and rationales behind their fetish for twentieth-century weaponry.
Reading that the "counterforce" against which they train resembles a BATF unit more than a military unit made me guess they might be hoping to contract for cartels, but that supposition was dashed upon finding that (at least on US soil) the cartels are far fonder of the bomb than the bullet.
Sixteenth-century vehicle borne improvised explosive devices: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellburners
Reading that the "counterforce" against which they train resembles a BATF unit more than a military unit made me guess they might be hoping to contract for cartels, but that supposition was dashed upon finding that (at least on US soil) the cartels are far fonder of the bomb than the bullet.
Sixteenth-century vehicle borne improvised explosive devices: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellburners
Bundy & Co. are a militia in the same way the James Gang was, or for that matter, the Wu-Tang Clan are. Disgruntled armed rural whites have been the bete noir of the urban reportorial class for so long that any crime, no matter how absurd, committed by guys in pickup trucks wearing cowboy hats is treated like the Austrian Anschluss.
Guaranteed acre-feet of press coverage; for the titillation of Euros who exoticize && Other the culture of the rural America.
Guaranteed acre-feet of press coverage; for the titillation of Euros who exoticize && Other the culture of the rural America.
I'm still somewhat surprised there have been no prominent terrorist attacks in Western countries by means of drones with payload.
Isn’t that just because the drone bit is easy and the payload bit is hard. Particularly in terms of procuring explosives, and making them effective and light enough for a drone to carry? Then you need a target that actually needs a drone to attack it versus doing something simpler.
No mention of the software?
What worries me is that in a close future they might develop their own autonomous Software to do the assassinations and sooner or later the software "leaks" to outside world. Then with a few thousand dollars you can program your own assassination tools. More sophisticated entities will develop the swarm version to do mass damage.
Will there be a proliferation fears of software similar to nuclear proliferation?
What worries me is that in a close future they might develop their own autonomous Software to do the assassinations and sooner or later the software "leaks" to outside world. Then with a few thousand dollars you can program your own assassination tools. More sophisticated entities will develop the swarm version to do mass damage.
Will there be a proliferation fears of software similar to nuclear proliferation?
The Black Mirror episode Hated in the Nation kind of touches on this.
Well, it will be 3 years next month since the first open source kinetic attack by non state actors using commercial off the self drones was conducted.
Frankly, I’m surprised it has taken 3 years for them to be used for kinetic attack by exceptionally well funded narcos.
Illicit use of drones has happened and will continue to grow.
Frankly, I’m surprised it has taken 3 years for them to be used for kinetic attack by exceptionally well funded narcos.
Illicit use of drones has happened and will continue to grow.
I'm surprised that it has taken this long for all of it. I remember reading the news several years ago about how some small drones got close to Merkel. My first worry was about assassinations. Quadcopters aren't expensive or even very difficult to make.
How do you even stop something like that?
How do you even stop something like that?
There are a range of options to defeat drones that include kinetic(birdshot and specialist shotgun rounds, netguns), non kinetic(electronic attack), as well as anti-drone drones(Anduril Industries). There have also been trials on using falconry to counter drones.
Without being an expert...
Shotguns, firing a net, anti-drone drones and also interfering with signals are all on the table.
Shotguns, firing a net, anti-drone drones and also interfering with signals are all on the table.
Obligatory video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM
Israel's "Lahav Or" (Light Blade) can
> Said to be the first defense system of its kind in the world, the Light Blade system will target incendiary balloons and kites, which have started countless fires in the southern border vicinity communities in recent years, as well as drones.
[0] https://www.israelhayom.com/2020/08/12/israel-deploys-first-...
> Said to be the first defense system of its kind in the world, the Light Blade system will target incendiary balloons and kites, which have started countless fires in the southern border vicinity communities in recent years, as well as drones.
[0] https://www.israelhayom.com/2020/08/12/israel-deploys-first-...
I assume that an attempt on assasination on a really relevant figure, president and so, could end with the entire cartel city nuked in retaliation. There is always a bigger fish, so there is a limit to what you can do with this.
My bet would be that this is a PR stunt and what they are really trying is to discourage people from catching drones that transport thousands of dollars in drugs to steal the cargo. Beware!, They could have a bomb included! so let them pass without shooting down it, specially in urban areas. Once the police and population take the message, the delivery drones will be safe.
My bet would be that this is a PR stunt and what they are really trying is to discourage people from catching drones that transport thousands of dollars in drugs to steal the cargo. Beware!, They could have a bomb included! so let them pass without shooting down it, specially in urban areas. Once the police and population take the message, the delivery drones will be safe.
How do you do attribution? What if you never find who killed the public figure?
Slightly baffled by this comment; Mexico is not a nuclear-armed state and is not going to start responding to its cartel problems with genocide? Or are you suggesting that the US would engage in a first strike genocide in response to a single quadcopter bomb?
Is just an metaphor that there is always something with a bigger drone. Change nuking by bombing and city by hacienda if you prefer.
Of course the concept of drone-bomb, once released, is like pandora's box. A double edged sword that could harm both parts.
The natural answer from the enemy cartel after being bombed would be to intercept as many enemy drug-delivery drones as possible with a, lets name it, "falcon-fly drone", attach a package bomb and a postcard with a magneto and let it to continue their route.
And if you are the police you could attach a beacon instead to convert it into a "Judas drone" and release it. Even better if you can catch again the drone in route or release the beacon automatically after a few minutes, the narcos wouldn't suspect that now you have a velocity and a vector. That would help you to trace a possible point of origin and maybe delivery over the same straight line.
Of course the concept of drone-bomb, once released, is like pandora's box. A double edged sword that could harm both parts.
The natural answer from the enemy cartel after being bombed would be to intercept as many enemy drug-delivery drones as possible with a, lets name it, "falcon-fly drone", attach a package bomb and a postcard with a magneto and let it to continue their route.
And if you are the police you could attach a beacon instead to convert it into a "Judas drone" and release it. Even better if you can catch again the drone in route or release the beacon automatically after a few minutes, the narcos wouldn't suspect that now you have a velocity and a vector. That would help you to trace a possible point of origin and maybe delivery over the same straight line.
"Nuked" probably only refers to somebody sending a bigger bomb on the way back and not so much on nuclear warfare.
Can someone make a new series of Robot Wars with drones? That would be fascinating viewing.
The pattern to discern from articles like this is that they highlight the threat and not the difficulty of actually realizing the threat.
When you put two layers of improvisation into a weapon the odds of it working are very low. Building an effective homemade grenade is difficult. Delivering it with a noisy machine that limits the size of the grenade multiplies the odds of making a spectacular but ineffective attempt that will only get you noticed.
But it does increase the odds that some consultant will get hired by DHS to write an unreadable report about this supposed threat.
When you put two layers of improvisation into a weapon the odds of it working are very low. Building an effective homemade grenade is difficult. Delivering it with a noisy machine that limits the size of the grenade multiplies the odds of making a spectacular but ineffective attempt that will only get you noticed.
But it does increase the odds that some consultant will get hired by DHS to write an unreadable report about this supposed threat.
Another example of how humans turn good tech into bad shit. Could all of this be solved by blowing up every explosives factory?
Yeah, not the worst way to go about assassinations
I'm reminded of the failed assassination attempt against Venezuela leader Nicolas Maduro
"group opposed to dictatorial Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro"
Gee what great, totally-not-editorialized analysis from yet another military think tank pr writer.
Gee what great, totally-not-editorialized analysis from yet another military think tank pr writer.
I strongly believe this is basically the great filter faced by all intelligent species in the universe.
Only way to overcome this great filter is by adopting policies that provide equal opportunities to each member of the species and create a non-divisive/united society where everyone practically helps each other. Aim would be to colonise other planets as soon as possible to decrease risks of civilisation destruction by technological offshoots.
I strongly believe that most of the alien species that achieve interstellar flight and escape the great filter must be benign, united, and highly intelligent for these reasons.
I also believe humanity’s chances of escaping the great filter is ~0%.