[HN Gopher] Adversary Drones Are Spying on the US;The Pentagon A...
___________________________________________________________________
Adversary Drones Are Spying on the US;The Pentagon Acts Like
They're UFOs (2021)
Author : krapp
Score : 66 points
Date : 2023-02-06 20:07 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thedrive.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thedrive.com)
| IOT_Apprentice wrote:
| This looks like a job for Space Force! Seriously, in conjunction
| with whatever has replaced Aegis on naval warfare ships. Detect
| drones, and destroy them.
| jrexilius wrote:
| This is a very good take on the topic, and makes a key point:
| "people expect one blanket and grand explanation for the entire
| UFO mystery to one day emerge. This is flawed thinking at its
| core. This issue is clearly one with multiple explanations due to
| the wide range of events that have occurred under a huge number
| of circumstances."
|
| There is a very high likelihood that Russia and China have been
| employing UAS's to gather intel on our training exercises, and
| they do not have to have cutting edge technology to do so.
| calyth2018 wrote:
| And what exactly _should_ be done about it?
|
| If they hypothesis is true, that a bunch of these UFO are
| actually drones / balloon trying to provoke a response and gather
| telemetry, then isn't the act of reacting to it and trying to
| light up the drone is _exactly_ what your opponent wants?
|
| If this is a telemetry probe in drone / balloon form, this is
| honestly nothing new. That's why subs are routinely in opponent
| waters, or tailing training exercises while trying to remain
| undetected. Or just outright fly a plane into opponent territory,
| provoke a response, record it so that the home team gets
| something to work on. The US is the masters at this and it's
| acting surprised that others are trying to play the same game?
| WalterBright wrote:
| > The US is the masters at this
|
| In 1968, my dad spent a year at Galena AFB in Alaska. This was
| the closest base to the USSR. Their entire job was to counter
| the Soviet incursions. The Red Air Force was _constantly_
| testing and probing and provoking the US air defenses.
|
| The usual thing was the Soviets would send over a bomber. Once
| they got close enough, Galena would send out a fighter or two
| to snuggle in close and let the bomber know that we saw 'em and
| we'd bwast 'em if they came any closer.
|
| It was the cold war, and that's how it was played.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| We did/do the same thing to them I believe. There's no one
| side playing nice in this, but hopefully everyone behaves in
| a way where a Nash equilibrium is the best outcome.
| mike_d wrote:
| > And what exactly should be done about it?
|
| Re-form the Treaty on Open Skies, which already addressed and
| solved this problem in the early 90s. You simply let the other
| country know that you are flying surveillance equipment
| overhead and the target country grants overflight.
|
| It doesn't fundamentally change either sides ability to conduct
| surveillance operations, but it does avoid situations like this
| that may escalate to armed conflict.
|
| We had a good thing going until the previous administration let
| Russia out of the agreement, enabling them to build up for the
| invasion of Ukraine.
| everdrive wrote:
| >then isn't the act of reacting to it and trying to light up
| the drone is exactly what your opponent wants?
|
| Honestly, probably not in a lot of cases. If the intent is to
| collect, then destroying the drone ends the collection.
| crote wrote:
| That depends on what you are trying to collect, doesn't it?
|
| It probably isn't optical data. Satellites are more than good
| enough for that, and near-realtime high-resolution data is
| even commercially available. It probably isn't electronic
| transmissions either. Having a field operative hide a SDR
| would be way easier, and way less conspicuous.
|
| However, it _could_ be trying to determine how the military
| responds to hostiles. Sending a jet after it and shooting it
| down might be _exactly_ the kind of data it is trying to
| collect.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Well, the main point of the article seems to be that we
| _should_ be developing far more effective anti-drone measures,
| and developing them faster.
|
| The opponent wants to spy and probe and test. Destroying those
| drones is exactly what we _should_ want, and what your opponent
| _doesn 't_ want.
|
| The only reason to allow these drones/balloons to operate
| freely is if we already have effective anti-drone measures that
| we're keeping secret, in order to goad an enemy into a false
| sense of security -- which the article also considers but then
| dismisses as unlikely.
|
| But aside from that hypothesis, I fail to see why destroying
| invading military technology would be "exactly what your
| opponent wants".
| ender341341 wrote:
| > The only reason to allow these drones/balloons to operate
| freely is if we already have effective anti-drone measures
| that we're keeping secret, in order to goad an enemy into a
| false sense of security -- which the article also considers
| but then dismisses as unlikely.
|
| My question is what do we gain from showing them we can shoot
| them down? how much more detailed of info are they getting
| from these drones that they aren't getting from LEO
| satellites? Shooting them down just gives whatever opponents
| test data for getting past our defences when they potentially
| actually need to in the future when they're actively hostile.
| crazygringo wrote:
| The article explains they could be collecting "extremely
| high-quality electronic intelligence data on... America's
| most capable air defense systems... that is very hard to
| reliably obtain otherwise. These radar emissions, and the
| datalink communications that go along with them, underpin
| highly networked counter-air architectures that are
| unmatched anywhere on earth. By gathering comprehensive
| electronic intelligence information on these systems,
| countermeasures and electronic warfare tactics can be
| developed to disrupt or defeat them."
|
| That's the stuff you don't get from LEO satellites.
| killjoywashere wrote:
| Aegis is alive and well:
| https://www.mda.mil/system/aegis_bmd.html
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| I would be surprised if other countries weren't doing this. Spy
| tech is often bleeding edge and it wouldn't be difficult to
| smuggle some drones into the US. Or even build or modify a
| commercial drone here.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| "Smuggle" in this case probably just looks like "put it in a
| FedEx box and mail it". I think you'd probably find it
| challenging to actually intentionally have a delivery of spy
| drones even looked at by a customs official.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| Foreign packages are xray'ed, no?
| mike_d wrote:
| Every package is screened in some way, but very few are
| x-rayed. They are looking for drugs, currency, stolen
| antiquities, stuff like that. It is hard for a lay-person
| to look at a collection of electronics and know if it is
| the guts of a VCR or an advanced spy drone.
| moose_man wrote:
| I do think this is more concerning than it would appear. I think
| the fact that this became a partisan food fight has forced this
| position that this wasn't a big deal on people who favor Biden.
| This is really about China since Xi took over. Executing CIA
| assets in courtyards in front of their colleagues, practicing
| missile strikes on models of US carriers, the repeated invasion
| of US airspace, the exercises near Taiwan after Pelosi visit.
| This is not good, and invading continental US airspace is ratchet
| up in brazenness. We need to have a national conversation about
| where this is heading. China under Xi is nothing like China 2000
| through 2010. In the last decade some of the biggest China made
| blockbusters have been glorifying fighting / killing Americans
| (Wolf Warrior II and The Battle at Lake Changjin)
|
| Edit for sources:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/asia/china-cia-spie...
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-builds-mockups-us-...
| mr90210 wrote:
| You've got a point. I am not knowledgeable about this topic,
| but it seems to me that no matter what, the US will always be
| on a tougher position because any overreaction from them to a
| provocation could end badly for everybody, and it seems that
| China is well aware of it, and they play with such fact.
|
| As an example: China sends a balloon to the US air space, any
| bold countermeasure in China's air space / territory means
| worldwide panic and potential war.
|
| The example above is just a simple scenario that I am using to
| describe the position where the US is at.
| moose_man wrote:
| I'm more concerned that there hasn't been a comprehensive
| analysis of where the situation is heading. It's like we're
| on autopilot without a strategy. If you look at experts on US
| China relations in the US and China, both sides basically
| agree we're heading towards war soon. We can't avoid war, if
| we just mindlessly react and go forward without a real
| strategy. All our lives depend on getting this right and
| hopefully steering to a place where we avoid war. It's not
| even a Cold War, the Cold War had guardrails. There are no
| guardrails.
| im3w1l wrote:
| I think we need to work out a common vision. How would a
| peaceful, happy and prosperous future for both the West and
| China look like? How can we cooperate in reaching this? How
| can we secure buy-in into this vision from the Chinese
| people?
|
| At the same time their needs to be deterrence of course,
| but I think we are already doing that part.
| pessimizer wrote:
| All the West needs for peace with China is to stop
| following the US as it continually threatens China.
| beebmam wrote:
| In the event of a country interested in the annexation and
| colonization of it's neighbors (like with China and its
| desire for Hong Kong, Taiwan, Senkaku island, and so on),
| there are three options.
|
| 1. A hot war emerges due to it's aggression
|
| 2. The aggression is unchecked, effectively meaning the
| victims surrender to blackmail and/or violence
|
| 3. A cold war is put into place to prevent aggression
| through deterrence and other mechanisms to manage the
| situation to prevent escalation to a hot war.
|
| My concern is that both Democrats and Republicans (and most
| other countries on earth) are not committed to a cold war
| and communicating that with the public. I'm far more
| concerned the US will surrender several more countries and
| territories to aggressive states before people realize
| what's going on and are ready to commit to a cold war to
| contain aggression.
| pessimizer wrote:
| We're currently occupying a third of Syria.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| When it comes to issues of national security, we rarely
| know what analysis has been done when we're on the outside
| looking in.
| moose_man wrote:
| I mean this has to be a national conversation where all
| stakeholders are aligned. From tech to Wall Street, to
| Capitol Hill to Main Street. We're all just reacting now
| with our own interests at the moment but we're all stuck
| in the same boat. No one is going to escape the horror
| unscathed if we sleepwalk into war.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| If there's war between the US and China, nobody escapes
| the horror period. Both nations have more than enough
| nuclear capacity to guarantee that.
| pessimizer wrote:
| We're not sleepwalking into war, we're threatening it.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| I'm sure that there has been comprehensive analysis in the
| Pentagon and State Dept. As for the prospects of war with
| China: Given the current context with Russia's war on
| Ukraine, how does war with China not escalate into WWIII
| pretty quickly? I don't think either side wants that - it
| would completely decimate both economies were it to happen.
| China would lose the US market and the US would lose a lot
| of Chinese products that are necessary (we're not de-
| globalized yet)
| moose_man wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion
|
| "In The Great Illusion, Angell's primary thesis was, in
| the words of historian James Joll, that "the economic
| cost of war was so great that no one could possibly hope
| to gain by starting a war the consequences of which would
| be so disastrous."[4] For that reason, a general European
| war was very unlikely to start, and if it did, it would
| not last long.[5] He argued that war was economically and
| socially irrational[6] and that war between industrial
| countries was futile because conquest did not pay. J. D.
| B. Miller writes: "The 'Great Illusion' was that nations
| gained by armed confrontation, militarism, war, or
| conquest."[7]
|
| This book was published in 1909, it was wildly popular.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Could anything other than China invading Taiwan
| precipitate war between the US and China? I doubt it
| (though sure, 'accidents' could happen given the current
| level of bellicosity). However, if China does invade
| Taiwan the whole economic argument seems to go off the
| table from the US perspective because Taiwan's fabs crank
| out the majority of the world's most advanced chips - ie.
| that act of invading Taiwan would in itself do a lot of
| damage to the world economy were it to happen within the
| next couple of years (before other fabs currently under
| construction come on line in 2 or 3 years).
|
| But then again, China has to know the stakes and the
| response (both economic and military) that would come to
| bear against them should they invade Taiwan.
| moose_man wrote:
| In a crisis spiral into war, I think the last thing that
| will be considered are chips or economics. It's often
| emotion that pushes everything over the edge. It's not a
| logical process. Nationalism is a force that operates on
| its own set of rules.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > the fact that this became a partisan food fight
|
| It has not become a partisan food fight. Both parties are
| whipping up anti-Chinese nationalism in their bases in order to
| support their next provocation, and the best method to install
| a belief into those hyperpartisans is to convince them that
| their counterparts on the other side are opposed to that
| belief. Republicans and Democrats are both convinced that
| Democrats and Republicans are dangerously soft on China.
| __derek__ wrote:
| Check out the recent book Danger Zone by Hal Brands. I do think
| there's a growing consensus that this belligerence is a near-
| term problem even if it's been slow to develop.
| pessimizer wrote:
| China isn't surrounding the US with its military and making
| weekly threats.
| moose_man wrote:
| Yeah the situation at the moment is very bleak, it's like
| watching a slow motion train wreck.
| RajT88 wrote:
| Blimey.
|
| Those films:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_at_Lake_Changjin
|
| > CNN noted that the film was commissioned by the propaganda
| department of the Chinese Communist Party, while Business
| Insider and The Economist said that the movie was part of a
| "main melody" genre of entertainment that praises China, the
| Chinese Communist Party, and the People's Liberation
| Army.[53][54][55]
|
| It doesn't say whether Wolf Warrior II was commissioned by the
| propaganda wing, but it stars some of the same actors.
| pessimizer wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gun:_Maverick
| moose_man wrote:
| That movie went way out of its way to obscure what country
| they going against. It definitely did not say the
| antagonists were Chinese.
| pessimizer wrote:
| That movie, like most American military action movies,
| was done in partnership with the US government, which was
| given approval on the script. I would ask why Chinese
| propaganda is painted as oppressive and heavy-handed when
| we're doing the exact same thing through government
| programs that are old enough to collect Social Security.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| What country do you think was vilified by that movie?
| pessimizer wrote:
| No country was vilified by Lake Changjin, either. A
| country that invaded Korea and killed a lot of people to
| keep them from becoming Communists was depicted.
| moose_man wrote:
| I mean this is China, it's not like there is a free media
| market. There is no way you could make that movie without
| high level officials wanting it.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-06 23:01 UTC)