Is the U.S. Vulnerable to a Drone Sneak Attack?
Technology
28
Beiträge
16
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
Drones have an incredibly limited range, so any drone attack would have to originate either inside the United States, off our coasts, or within the borders of Canada and Mexico.
Yeah that's why it would be like a Trojan horse, if it allegedly came in from a shipment from another country.
-
I think basically everyone except North Korea is. Anyone who allows goods and people to move through their borders with any level of freedom can theoretically get attacked like Russia did.
NK has a bunch of manufacturing plants. Lots of trucks and trains cross their borders with Russia, China, and even South Korea every day.
-
Ukrainian
insurgentsdefendersI think they mean insurgency as in resistance in occupied areas.
-
Ukrainian
insurgentsdefendersWhen they're behind enemy lines, I'd say they're on offense.
-
And? What's stopping those scenarios from happening?
Highly unlikely.
-
From whom?
Just look at the list of countries that the USA has pissed off in the last whatever years, and choose one at random.
-
The author seems like a total dick, but given the recent fear/rumor of the possibility of a false flag attacks on U.S. soil, I feel like something like this isn't inconceivable.
Is the U.S. Vulnerable to a Drone Sneak Attack? - Chronicles
After Israel’s surprise drone attack on Iranian nuclear targets, many are concerned that China could be preparing for something similar in the United States.
Chronicles (chroniclesmagazine.org)
Its possible a sleeper cell of terrorists could effectuate some small area drone strikes with commercial off the shelf drones and improvised explosives.
The large scale military drones you are envisioning that can do the same damage as military aerial bombardment, that is a much harder thing to "sneak" into the US at any kind of scale or to build in secret.
As for future state actor capabilities. It seems possible that China is working on drone tech deployed from submarines or other force-projection platforms. Yet another reason to avoid a hot war with near peer militaries in current year.
-
Drones have an incredibly limited range, so any drone attack would have to originate either inside the United States, off our coasts, or within the borders of Canada and Mexico.
Yes, indeed. Can you buy or build a drone in the US? No problem. Can you get explosives or other nasty stuff to arm it? No issue for a determined group. Can you find an undefended soft target? Of course, there is a smorgasboard of those.
-
Its possible a sleeper cell of terrorists could effectuate some small area drone strikes with commercial off the shelf drones and improvised explosives.
The large scale military drones you are envisioning that can do the same damage as military aerial bombardment, that is a much harder thing to "sneak" into the US at any kind of scale or to build in secret.
As for future state actor capabilities. It seems possible that China is working on drone tech deployed from submarines or other force-projection platforms. Yet another reason to avoid a hot war with near peer militaries in current year.
Ok I'll just come out and say this, I think it would be easy for a certain corrupt individual to create a false flag drone attack from a "foreign adversary" in order to boost patriotic morale and gain the support necessary to drag a certain country into a war he has repeatedly and very publicly announced he does not want to be involved in despite all evidence to the contrary.
Especially given that corrupt individual has dismantled several safety measures and regulations and eliminated positions of individuals who are trained to keep something like this from happening.
If you look at the amount of damage done by the Beeper attacks a few years ago, you really don't need a gigantic war drone to cause a catastrophe in certain conditions.
I know it sounds paranoid AF, but I find it especially odd that same individual is trying to shut down the only agency that would thoroughly investigate an industrial chemical explosion if one were to occur.
https://grist.org/energy/trump-quietly-shutters-the-only-federal-agency-that-investigates-industrial-chemical-explosions/ -
From whom?
Specifically? Who knows, but the concept has already been tested by someone, and afaik, they have still not figured out who did it.
-
When they're behind enemy lines, I'd say they're on offense.
Then they’re commandos or special forces. ‘Insurgents’ implies an uprising against a central government, and serves to reinforce the Russian narrative of Ukraine being part of their empire.
-
I think they mean insurgency as in resistance in occupied areas.
The attack on Moscow’s strategic bomber fleet was not carried out by resistance fighters in e.g. Crimea, which would be the implication under that interpretation.
-
Yes, indeed. Can you buy or build a drone in the US? No problem. Can you get explosives or other nasty stuff to arm it? No issue for a determined group. Can you find an undefended soft target? Of course, there is a smorgasboard of those.
One person making a drone is far different from China staging an attack.
-
I think basically everyone except North Korea is. Anyone who allows goods and people to move through their borders with any level of freedom can theoretically get attacked like Russia did.
I mean, this has always been true, the drones only close the gap by miles. The big issue with the drone attack was Ukraine ability to sneak explosives deep into Russian territory. The delivery mechanism of drones may make it more accurate, but it could have been rockets/mortars and the effect would have been the same.
-
One person making a drone is far different from China staging an attack.
It only needs one right drone with the right payload at the right place and time...
-
Then they’re commandos or special forces. ‘Insurgents’ implies an uprising against a central government, and serves to reinforce the Russian narrative of Ukraine being part of their empire.
Then they’re commandos or special forces.
Sure, fair enough.
-
The attack on Moscow’s strategic bomber fleet was not carried out by resistance fighters in e.g. Crimea, which would be the implication under that interpretation.
Yeah and iirc there have been some acts of sabotage in Russia that could have been carried out by actual insurgents, but as far as we know this one was Ukrainian special forces
-
Exactly, it's a modern day trojan horse. It seems to be fairly easy to then potentially pin the attack on just about anyone using shell companies for shipment. Especially with the deregulation and removal of so many safety and security positions over the last several months.
I was reading a little about the beeper attacks the and I think even now there is still some uncertainty about which company actually worked with the Mossad to manufacture the batteries that contained the explosive.
The only reason I even bring that up, is that there were so many steps involving so many different groups of legitimate manufacturing companies as well as shell companies to ship the beepers. Some of the beepers were even taken apart and inspected before being distributed as a security measure, but they had used such a small amount of explosive fuel within the batteries, that it was completely missed.
Unless there's another beeper attack I missed, the one last September was directed at Hezbollah, across Lebanon and Syria.
-
Unless there's another beeper attack I missed, the one last September was directed at Hezbollah, across Lebanon and Syria.
Yeah you're right, my bad.
