The July 13 assassination attempt on President Trump and the resulting exposure of the Secret Service as nothing short of inept has shown that if a 20-something-year-old nerd can come within a centimeter of killing a former (and future) president, a trained assassin or a state-sponsored terrorist shouldn’t have an issue.
Assassinations of political leaders have generally followed a common theme. A nut armed with a firearm, typically a rifle, lays in wait and waits for the perfect opportunity to take a shot that may make him or her a part of history. Such shots famously took out President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King. However, one area that has not previously been considered is an aerial attempt…such as a drone.
A chilling report in Business Insider suggests that the use of drones for politically-targeted killings is something that has not been contemplated. However, with unmanned drones increasingly being used in armed conflicts in countries such as Ukraine, the use of a drone in an assassination attempt cannot be ruled out.
Security experts are warning that inexpensive drones can be easily transformed into deadly weapons by extremist groups both here and abroad.
The attempt on Trump’s life showed severe shortcomings in the ability of the Secret Service to defend its protectees from “normal” assassination attempts, such as the use of guns, knives, or even bombs. However, drones “offer a new and dangerous threat” that law enforcement is ill-prepared for.
“It’s the easiest thing in the world to hook a small piece of explosive to a drone, and send it over an event,” Kent Moyer, president of World Protection Group, a private security firm, told Business Insider.
Moyer said that when it comes to protecting dignitaries or sporting events and concerts from such an attack, “nobody is really doing countermeasures against drones.”
That seems to run contrary to the so-called “drone-free zones” established by the Secret Service, which prohibit drone flights within a 30-mile radius of presidential speaking engagements. The agency also jams signals near the White House.
Despite that, the Trump shooter in Butler, Pennsylvania, earlier that day used a drone to fly over the site to ostensibly obtain surveillance on the layout. Reports state that the FAA imposed drone restrictions approximately two hours before Trump’s speech; however, it is unknown if drone jamming technology was used. Nonetheless, given the number of complete screw-ups by the Secret Service on that day, it isn’t clear if the rally site was indeed drone-proof. Those errors include failing to secure nearby rooftops and a lack of coordination between the Secret Service and local law enforcement assets.
Using drones to carry out assassinations is nothing new. The United States, Britain, and Israel have all used them for over twenty years to carry out assassinations; they typically use expensive drones, including the $30 million MQ-Reaper, which is armed with laser-guided missiles filled with explosives or sharp metal blades that can shred a target. However, some experts now believe that someone with training could take a $300 drone and weaponize it to strike a target within only a few miles with little if any warning, Business Insider reports.
While drones have not been used previously to carry out attacks on public figures, despite having terrorist groups such as the Islamic State own them, it doesn’t mean there have not been attempts. Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro survived an attempt on his life by explosive drones while giving a speech in 2018.
The fact is that if a lunatic wants to kill a public figure, there are a myriad of ways to do so. Aside from Kennedy and King, Kennedy’s brother Robert F. Kennedy, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe all fell to an assassin’s bullet. All told, four US presidents were assassinated between 1865 and 1963 using “old-fashioned rifles and pistols.”
Drones are a new and potentially deadly means to add another tool to the assassin’s toolkit. They serve a myriad of uses, from merely carrying out surveillance on an intended target zone, as happened to President Trump. They can carry explosives, such as the attempt on Maduro, or they could even deploy chemical or biological weapons. Imagine a Trump rally with a typical crowd of over 10,000 people that saw a drone deploying some chemical weapon. It would make the 9/11 attacks pale in comparison.
Drones, however, do have limitations. Bad weather or jamming technology can limit their use. They could also distract dignitary protection, which could facilitate an attack by conventional means.
“Often, the use of a drone in concert with another platform might be the optimum approach<” Daniel Gerstein, a drone expert for the RAND Corp, told Business Insider.
Troops in war zones have tremendous difficulty defending against drones, which has been shown in the Ukraine war, where both sides have lost large numbers of soldiers and equipment despite the use of the jammers mentioned above, plus anti-aircraft guns and missiles. The ability to take down drones at a crowded political rally is a lot more complicated.
“Even simple measures such as jamming GPS signals can be effective,” Gerstein said. “Of course, one must worry about collateral damage if a drone is engaged and falls out of the sky. The debris could be deadly to civilians.”
Unfortunately, with all technology, there is evil that comes with the good. Drones have proven useful in military and commercial applications such as photography. Unfortunately, for every advance in technology, bad guys are waiting to exploit it.
Comments