Terrorist attack on Saudi oil

[redpoint5]

I'm not justifying all US actions by adhering to a definition of terrorism.

Anyhow, what concerns me more is the fact that drones are super cheap, and this is an indication of terrorism to come; where cities can be bombed by small and cheap drones that can't be linked back to their point of origin.

We're going to need interceptor drones at some point.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

Words and definitions don't matter. Terrorists are anyone that "we" don't like. And if you disagree, you're a terrorist too.

I suppose the British considered 'us' terrorists back in 1776.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Anyhow, what concerns me more is the fact that drones are super cheap, and this is an indication of terrorism to come; where cities can be bombed by small and cheap drones that can't be linked back to their point of origin.

We're not there yet.

Apparently it was cruise missile[s], necessary to pack the ordinance. With flocks of fly-weight drones, they will tend toward 'single-bullet' kamikaze drones that take out personnel.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

We're not there yet.

Apparently it was cruise missile[s], necessary to pack the ordinance. With flocks of fly-weight drones, they will tend toward 'single-bullet' kamikaze drones that take out personnel.

Well, that's more what I was thinking (small drones; single kill targets), but we're not far off from relatively cheap drones capable of higher payloads and ordinance.

There's Youtube videos of people flying RC planes hundreds of miles. Cheap GPS makes manual control unnecessary.

Imagine if the Japanese balloon bombs had access to $2 GPS chips and altimeters with some cheap digital control logic. They'd still have mostly ended up in empty space since most of the US is empty, but I imagine something like that could be effective to terrorists.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

One of the reasons why I support ethanol and biodiesel is the possibility to keep the production less concentrated at some specific area and resorting to different feedstocks. Attacking dozens of biofuel factories might be harder than doing the same against a handful of oil refineries.

[oil pan 4]

The ethanol refinery here looks like an oil refinery.

[Fat Charlie]

Great. Now we're going to send missile units to protect their oil fields. I'd rather just let oil go up.

[oil pan 4]

Yes and the Russians would like for that to happen too.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by TFA

Esper reiterated that the United States does not seek a conflict with Iran and called on Tehran to return to diplomatic channels. He also said that there could be additional U.S. deployments if the situation were to escalate.

I'd be more concerned with more military equipment to the Saudis.

[redpoint5]

I've never liked arming the enemy of my enemy. If a cause justifies the use of force and violence, we should do it ourselves; else, leave it alone. Also, when violence is justified, it should be as quick and fierce as possible to end it as quickly as possible.

As a tangent, though I am not hawkish, I never understood how Embassys get overrun with the people inside being murdered. There should be hundreds of invader bodies on and around the walls of embassys from the first waves of people attempting to overtake it. If it is sovereign land of the representative country, their duty is to protect it by all means necessary. Each invasion should play out like the Alamo.