Pandora’s Box of Drones
Jon Evans raises an interesting point in “Droning On Towards A Date With Destiny?“.
Drones are useful for destroying targets remotely with greater accuracy than lobbing in shells or dropping bombs. They can be sent where the risk to soldiers is too great. They can hover out of sight for days until their operators see the right moment to strike, which is easier than keeping people hidden on the ground waiting for that opportunity. But what will we do when the bad guys have the same technology?
At one time, the cruise missile was the New Thing. American use of them against Iraq was a great proof of concept and rivals have developed their own. American success in taking out targets in Pakistan and Yemen has opened the eyes of the World to the capabilities of drones.
It’s only a matter of time before rivals come up with their own versions but, unlike cruise missiles, drones can be made on the cheap with readily available material. That puts them in the range of hobbyists. So was this development inevitable?
A drone does not have to be as sophisticated as the Predator or Reaper to deliver its payload. The objective does not have to be to destroy the target. The weapon does not have to be explosive. As was pointed out in The Science Behind the Drone Terrorism Attack, an intelligent person with nefarious intent could do worse better by setting his sights lower.
This all leads me to wonder what countermeasures are already being cooked up to deal with the eventual widespread availability of drones in the private sector. Drone-killer drones? Adapting EM-jamming to seek and interrupt control signals? And are the countermeasure practicable for widespread use?