News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
The shelves of your nearest hobby store hold the weapons of the future, with only a minimal cost. And that’s terrifying.
ftfy
No, definitely terrifying. War should be costly and terrible. That’s the only reason it isn’t more common, that its cost is objectionable. Pax economica, while flawed, is more subjective than ever before. And I do not like that.
War is costly and terrible, and it always will be, regardless of the magnitude of resources required to wage war.
Your semantic argument costs 300 dollars to destroy with a grenade sent through a closed window from a person 500 miles away.
and it still is and it will be
that's the point, more often that not, to take money and burn it while producing more fuel for propaganda
not saying that's whats happening in Ukraine, but this has happened a ton in the past and will continue
So that only the most powerful and elite can engage in a monopoly of violence eh? I'm far more concerned about a well funded local police agency thinking they need a bearcat, or a global power thinking they need a bomb that can split the earth in half than a neighbor with a drone and a 3d printer.
You've got it all wrong. The dissolution of the high technology, grand tower approach to war fighting is a good thing.
There is little to no risk with choosing this as your terrorism device compared to the other options. No getting caught planting a bomb, no getting shot when you pull out a gun. Acquiring the parts is cheap, easy, and hard to track. Hell, they probably won't even catch you if you get shot down unless you leave your remote transmitting.
And what about that same police force with hundreds of these instead of 1 armored vehicle? They don't even need explosives, you can put guns or tazers on these things. No witnesses when they kill someone through their 3rd story window.
I don't really care who is at the controls, it's scary that anyone can get it - and I say that as someone who would be crushed if they started heavily regulating flying
Hobbyists have been flying remote control aircraft for decades.
Flying is heavily regulated.
Quadcopters are relatively new and the barrier to entry is way down. In the past few years, the technology has advanced considerably and it's cheaper than ever making it a "reasonable" option for a more casual terrorist. You're talking to one of those hobbyists, by the way.
Flying commercially is heavily regulated but purchases aren't. 3 of my quads are illegal to fly without a license but there's nothing stopping you from building identical (or better) models.
This isn't to say I think they should be illegal. It's just scary how its easier than ever for someone to become a terrorist from their basement.
Governments will use drones. It will cost little. War will be a lighter proposition. That’s what I’m getting at.
Well, there is the whole payload aspect you need to figure out.
If you have that figured out, the rest is and has always been relatively trivial in comparison.
The trucks in the videos clearly never went through any check of the cargo. Could have had a simple trebuchet design in there and haul some explosives onto the airfield.
Yeah, that's something I feel like is being taken out of context. It's the getting the explosives within range of the planes that was impressive to me. They could have had mortars/rockets/etc. and probably done similar damage at that range.
I'm sure drones increase the success rate, but it wasn't drones that made that operation a success from my understanding.
The cargo area had a false ceiling didn't it? Like I saw one that looked like you could open the back of the 'trailer' but there was a fake ceiling with the drones above that.
Afaik they had fake ceilings yeah. However noone that would bother to look, would be tricked by fake ceilings. That trick exists since horse carriages. The fake ceilings only give the driver some deniability.