John Robb: ‘Comply or Die’

(The Autonomous Rotorcraft Sniper System; see also this link)

The latest from Global Guerrillas closes with these grafs:

***
…What can we look forward to?

The mid term future of a national security apparatus in secular ($$) decline?

Drones, drones, and more drones. Shrink the headcount. Cut training. Put manned weapons systems in life support mode. Cut mx.

All the money is on cyber intel (to generate targets based on “signatures”) and drones to kill them. When domestic unrest occurs in the US due to economic decline, these systems will be ready for domestic application.

Oh joy.
***

Bring it.

And reap the frigging whirlwind.

Do it, tyrants.

Do it.

33 responses to “John Robb: ‘Comply or Die’

  1. Bwahahahahahaha!!!!! No kidding — Bring It On.

    The more they rely on these technologies, the better for FREEFOR. Hacking knowledge is fungible and can be purchased anywhere for the right price.

    The fools in power actually believe in the “Titanic Principle”: we have created perfection, against which Man and Nature shall struggle in vain.

    Hack the thing, and turn it against its masters.

    http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/attacks/232300666

    http://www.tgdaily.com/security-features/58927-virus-infects-us-military-drones

    This technology is already compromised, and these clowns think they can now rule the masses with these things? Thank God for stupidity in OPFOR.

    True, I can see it from OPFOR’s perspective: machines don’t question the morality or Constitutionality behind orders to kill innocents. But machines are vulnerable and, as the current Afghanistan debacle is showing, the Air Force cannot hold ground or defeat guerrilla movements.

  2. I suggested the exact same thing at GG last night WRT Jim Bell.

  3. This particular weapons system looks like it can be engaged by .30 and .50 cal rifle fire just as soon as it steadies for a shot. Predators and Reapers will remain a huge problem until we can counter any fighter coverage but this thing? Keep a couple shooters in reserve to engage any of these heli-drones.

  4. I would merely note that “Mr. Bell” specifically states the actions he proposes would be “beyond the legal reach of any law-abiding government.”

    I am not quite sure where anybody might find one of those these days.

  5. As far as helidrones, this could also be one:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AH-64_Apache

    Let’s think bigger. There’s no reason something like this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC130

    couldn’t be a drone aircraft which could rain destruction down. This is the Dictatorship of the Air which Wells wrote of in 1933…

  6. Whatever, bring it!

  7. One does not beat this type of weapon by engaging the weapon. They can roll off the assembly line like the Model T.

    One must take the fight out of the enemy. One must convince the enemy not to give the order to use the weapon, and failing that, one must convince the weapon operators not to comply with orders.

    Kerodin
    III

    • A. Nony Mous

      “One does not beat this type of weapon by engaging the weapon. They can roll off the assembly line like the Model T.

      One must take the fight out of the enemy. One must convince the enemy not to give the order to use the weapon, and failing that, one must convince the weapon operators not to comply with orders.”

      Exactly. Taking off the gloves the way the gubermint did in Bosnia would do the trick – they changed the rules of war by going against non-combatants that could influence the outcome…thereby changing the rules forever. $hit can travel in 2 directions, and some of those near and dear to the weapons operators (or, preferably, their bosses) may get some on them if this kind of Hell was unleashed against the American public.

  8. I agree with Kerodin, it is much like the Hydra of Greek mythology. Since we won’t have Medusa’s head in a bag, the only thing we will be able to do is get at the “heart” of the matter..

  9. Here’s how they *bring it*.
    You receive a document in the mail from a tyrannical gov’t entity that you HAD to deal with in the past stating you must pay them an amount equivalent to 1/8 of your yearly income. I am not speaking of the IRS. You spend 4 hours on the phone trying to get to the bottom of it only to become infuriated and frustrated and no answers so you seek initial legal counsel at minimal expense. The counsel reads the documents, drops them on his desk and takes off his glasses and rubs the sides of his nose in thought. He replaces the glasses and looks at you and says, “Pay them.” You look at him quizmically and he further states, “The cost of resisting this is far more than the amount they are stealing from you, at least 10 times more.” So you seek another counsel elsewhere and are told the same thing. You have just been thieved of 1/8 of your gross income for nothing at all. Then a couple years goes by and it happens again but the numbers are larger this time, much larger. You can get no answers for there are none, there is only *process* and *arbitrary law* and surly gov’t employees with adolescent intellect *just doing their job* and through attrition they wear you out.

    They don’t need to take your guns nor do they need to put you in jail, the veiled threat of jail is usually enough to make you abide by their rules.

    The system runs by itself with the only human interface being in the enforcement stage, the thugs on the street.

    First, they destroy your means of creating income, then they steal everything you have.

    What do you have left?

    • The Trail of Tears, the “resettlement” camps for undesirables, the Dekulakization, and now this. The ultimate result of all forms of big government is human extinction. To kill people, all it takes is to destroy enough of their wealth. You don’t have to collect that wealth in a form you can reuse, you merely have to destroy it. The $250 traffic ticket from the red light camera which produces a $3,000 loss in automobile insurance increases. Funneling tax money into welfare and war, which generates more demand for welfare and war. All you fans of “constitutional government” are welcome to get devoured by it.

      • Anon: You condemn the premise of Constitutional Government, rather than the men and women who pervert it.

        I would contend we have not had “Constitutional Government” for a very long time in this country.

        I also contend that moral men and women in Government who stay within the bounds of Constitutional Government would preside over the greatest expansion of Liberty since Jefferson was among us.

        Kerodin
        III

      • Kerodin: I don’t give one good goddamn about any constitution, it has nothing to do with ME.

        Do you understand?

        Your assumptions about constitutional gov’t is embarrassing.
        Moral people do not rule others, and you should know better.

      • That’s always been the plan. Take as much wealth from everyone else as possible, it’s the one consistent theme in every government ever on Earth. Those that really run things, they don’t want others to become financially self-sufficient or even compete with them. They despise us, hate us, and are collapsing the economy as a silent weapon in a quiet war that most people don’t have a clue about but are certainly feeling it.

        Back to drones: these microdrones, can’t an array of magnetrons stripped from microwaves be used to create an maser energy barrier or maser weapon to fry the circuitry? I think that would be a good option-it’s something I heard from somewhere else.

        For the big ticket drones, we’re going to need a cheap to build drone interceptor that has stealth characteristics itself, high speed and maneuverability performance and some form of crude ai-I mean, it’s going to basically be a reusable surface to air “missile” that can dogfight. If we stick to technologies that Americans have at their disposal; consumer electronics, machine shops, scrapyards, marinas, that sort of thing and craft them intelligently I think there’s a chance we could come up with something to even the odds.

        Take away their air dominance and they can be defeated.

      • Well, GhostSniper: What assumptions do I make about the Constitution?

        Start with the embarassing ones, if you will.

        Kerodin
        III

      • Kerodin writes: You condemn the premise of Constitutional Government, rather than the men and women who pervert it.

        Neither Windows nor constitutions deliver the security they promise when operated in the real world. You reply that Windows users must all have a computer science degree, and constitution users must all have a law degree and be candidates for sainthood. I reply those conditions are ridiculous and impossible to meet.

        I would contend we have not had “Constitutional Government” for a very long time in this country.

        General Washington crushing the Whisky Rebellion, President Jefferson doing the Louisiana Purchase, the Alien and Sedition Acts; the US Constitution never delivered the control over itself it promised.

        I also contend that moral men and women in Government who stay within the bounds of Constitutional Government would preside over the greatest expansion of Liberty since Jefferson was among us.

        If criminals obeyed laws, then gun control would work too.

      • Anon: I never said anything approaching the premise of requiring law degrees to participate in Constitutional governance, even on a rhetorical level. The Constitution never promised control over itself – men promised to abide the parameters.

        I can answer your protests by focusing on your last line, where you write: If criminals obeyed laws, then gun control would work too.

        My response: If Americans killed their traitors, our problem would be solved…and that would be Constitutional.

        Kerodin
        III

      • J Croft writes: can’t an array of magnetrons stripped from microwaves be used to create an maser energy barrier or maser weapon to fry the circuitry?

        To produce a microwave oven’s effects, you’d need to focus down to a one foot circle at 1,000 yards. I’m not a ham, would that require an eight foot diameter dish? Tracking the quick moving target would be even harder. Consider an industrial CO2 laser used against the camera instead. The beam is infrared so maybe it wouldn’t paint a big bright line back to the source.

      • I never said anything approaching the premise of requiring law degrees to participate in Constitutional governance, even on a rhetorical level

        I think I’m responding to the point of your objection. For the Constitution to work you understand that men need to be “better”: more noble, less criminal, better informed, more willing to sacrifice themselves in a fight. Well, the USSR failed to breed New Soviet Man, and America failed to breed New Republican Man. Can you propose software for government which works with the men we have?

        men promised to abide the parameters

        Which men? Only rich white males could vote at the time it was “ratified”. I never promised, how does it bind me? Did these men sell my ancestors into slavery?

        If Americans killed their traitors, our problem would be solved…and that would be Constitutional.

        Which reveals the Constitution is more than superfluous, it’s distracting. The only “government” plan you need is: thou shalt not steal, murder, or envy; and the second amendment.

      • Anon: Men need not be “better” – we simply need to send better men to do the job and exclude morally lesser men. There were plenty of “lesser men” who were not worthy of seats of power in our Founding generation – including Hamilton. He squeeked in and caused a world of trouble that we still endure today.

        You find the Constitution to be superflous, I disagree, and we’ll never find common ground on that point. Here is one difference, however: You will always claim people like me want to rule, and thus we are somehow evil, whereas Constitutional governance permits everything you seek.

        Where you would limit me, my Constitutional governance will not limit you.

        Constitutional governance does not hinder or infringe your core requisites of: …thou shalt not steal, murder, or envy; and the second amendment.

        Though I admit governance by Constitutional ideals will not end envy – it will prevent it from evolving into theft and it would keep the Bad People of the world from my doorstep.

        Once Anarchists end the problems of envy for all of mankind, from say those 1.3 Billion Chinese who would do bad things to my family and the billion or so Muslims who would force my wife into slavery, then I’ll consider scrapping the concept of Constitutional governance.

        Anarchism in the real world is a threat to my wife. Perverted governance in the name of the Constitution is a threat to my wife.

        Constitutional governance is not.

        Kerodin
        III

      • Constitutional governance does not hinder or infringe your core requisites of: …thou shalt not steal, murder, or envy; and the second amendment.

        It is a fallacy to define words differently for government than for everyone else. All taxation is theft. All prosecution of victimless crime threatens murder. All constitutions operate by theft and murder and motivate voters by envy.

        Men need not be “better” — we simply need to send better men to do the job and exclude morally lesser men.

        We continually tried the approach of sending better men to do the job and excluding morally lesser men for 200+ years, and we don’t like the results. What you are saying is “socialism works if only the right people are in charge”. What would falsify your claims? What evidence would it take for you to conclude that constitutions can’t do what you want? Is your belief in constitutions a disprovable hypothesis, or an article of religious faith?

    • A. Nony Mous

      “Here’s how they *bring it*.

      You receive a document in the mail from a tyrannical gov’t entity that you HAD to deal with in the past stating you must pay them an amount equivalent to 1/8 of your yearly income. I am not speaking of the IRS. You spend 4 hours on the phone trying to get to the bottom of it only to become infuriated and frustrated and no answers so you seek initial legal counsel at minimal expense. The counsel reads the documents, drops them on his desk and takes off his glasses and rubs the sides of his nose in thought. He replaces the glasses and looks at you and says, “Pay them.” You look at him quizmically and he further states, “The cost of resisting this is far more than the amount they are stealing from you, at least 10 times more.” ”
      _________________________________________
      I worked as a Tax Attorney in NYC during the early 1990s. Both NYC and NYS did exactly that – those it wasn’t 1/8 of one’s income, it was a few hundred bucks. Fighting it with just a letter and a phone call, plus some back-up tax information, would have cost at least $1,000…so we told our clients to pay if they wanted to keep the most money possible in their pockets.

      They wear you down a little at a time – the old frog in the pot of warm water, being gradually heated up to a boil.

      I suspect that if they tried for 1/8 of someone’s income, a very good fight could be brought for far less. Plus, enough of these cases and it would go viral – lots of people wouldn’t hesitate to bitch about the gov’t on Facebook, Twitter, etc. Nonetheless, they have, do and will continue to do this on a smaller scale.

      • I see you require additional detail.
        The gov’t entity states you must surrender $18 within 30 days or a warrant will be issued for your arrest. The lawyer says he can make it all go away for $100k.

        Which would you choose?

        In this case, the $18k was paid, and it went away, for awhile.
        Then it returned.

        This happens frequently.

      • That should say $18k not $18.

  10. Fury and nothing left to lose!

    Diamondback

  11. I’m pretty ignorant about drones in general, but they do have to have staging, maintenance and flight control people don’t they?

    • Yeah, but we can’t count on them not being guarded. Say a Predator that’s been bombing yours was controlled from, say, Nellis AFB in Las Vegas Nevada. Las Vegas has a few roads connecting to it, is remote, and is likely to be one of the first cities they thouroughly clear out making infiltration to catch the soon to be hordes of 400lb Hot Pockets eating drone jockeys/former gamers looking for work in a collapsed economy… rather difficult. Even more locally controlled drones will LIKELY be done from secured locations meaning a major op to get at them.

      Have to look at every way to counter and defeat them.

  12. Simon Jester

    The primary reason drones are as effective as they are is that they are not as easy to spot as you would think. You can’t engage what you don’t know is there. Whether human or technology based, there must be an early warning system in place to degrade their effectiveness. If the OpFor uses hacker types then valuable intel can be gathered from local (to the c&c) hacker communities as many hackers like to brag but only to other hackers.