UAVs as Potential Threats

"The RCMP is always concerned about the use of new technology for potential terrorist purposes, including UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles]. However, we take the appropriate steps to address these potential threats and to ensure the safety and security of Canadians is protected."
Sgt. Greg Cox, RCMP spokesman

"[Experts are divided about a UAV's] ability to hit a target in a precise manner within centimetres and to detonate IEDs [improvised explosive devices] or disperse chemical/biological agents at the desired time."
"It could also be very difficult to refine an effective dispersal device for chem/bio agents and to obtain or develop biological agents."
"[However] some attack scenarios may warrant further scientific study to determine the feasibility and requisite safeguards."
RCMP intelligence assessment document

  MQ-9 Reaper Drone - UAV - Predator B

Unmanned aerial devices are still, in some respects, in the experimental stages in the sense that their capabilities are still being refined, and may be eventually in advances that usher in greater threats to public security in ways that have not yet been fully realized. If the agents of change are those whose intention it is to do great harm, such as the suggestions of biological or chemical dispersal within a population, catastrophic results could occur.

The Extremist Exploitation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles intelligence assessment produced by the RCMP cites over a dozen plots globally with the intention of using remote-piloted aircraft to carry explosives or chemical and biological agents. Great good fortune, or perhaps the challenge of carrying out sophisticated attacks that these would represent being beyond the capacity of the plotters has seen to it that none of the plots matured to action, let alone success.

Concern is rising, however, respecting the potential of such attacks being carried out undetected in advance by intelligence agencies who would otherwise compromise its success. To that end, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police struck a committee to develop guidelines for the interception of weaponized drones or UAVs. Among the issues being considered is whether proactive decisions to simply shoot them down, represents one quite direct solution. And an obvious enough first start.

Draft guidelines hold that "members attempting to defeat or disable a UAV must first consider public and peace officer safety. Unless situational factors dictate otherwise, members will not discharge their firearm at a UAV." Thus shooting down the theory that the obvious enough first start of shooting them down is immediately feasible; shoot first, ask questions later; in the event of causing larger harm. But how to judge whether that is the case, to begin with?

Experts, it seems, are divided with respect to the level of threat that UAVs conceivably pose, since up to the present plots have been successfully interrupted through intervention. So far, thirteen identified cases where terrorists have made an attempt or planned to modify remote-controlled aircraft for attacks against targets including the Capital building in Washington, the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, the House of Commons in Britain and the military headquarters in Pakistan, were thwarted.

ScanEagle UAV - UAS - Unmanned Aerial System

Those are all high-value targets. Hitting any of them would produce a monumental blow to Western society and security at its deepest, most fundamental level. In the case of Pakistan, there is the potential of its nuclear arms being appropriated should such an attack ever be successful. Most such plots came awry of intervention in the planning phase, others foiled during the testing phase. That such sophisticated plans were being developed is food for pause if not panic.

On a lower level of harm, yet instructive respecting a certain level of success, the use of drones by organized crime to fly remote-controlled helicopters over prison walls to drop drugs and cellphones to inmates has happened at jails across Quebec. Even hobbyist use of UAVs has become a problem. Let alone law enforcement, TV and film crew use of the robots. Which brings Transport Canada into the picture.

New guidelines were issued the past fall that such aircraft not be flown within nine kilometres of airports or higher than 90 metres above ground. They must also not be flown close by large groups of people, busy streets, military bases and prisons, and always kept within the line of sight. All others, logically, should be summarily arrested in flight -- by being shot down, of course. Any otherwise law-abiding citizens should face steep fines for not obeying those Transport Canada rulings.

As for the terrorists plotting their threatening operations, attempts to shoot them down should also be taken under consideration.