Casimir Radon posted:

I hope Mueller set up a deadman switch for just such an occurence.

LITERALLY SHAKING posted:

There's incentive not to gently caress up veteran benefits. Pissing off a population of mostly armed, retarded and crazy people won't end well for anyone.

quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon has sent new guidance to the armed services that lays out the military’s authority to disable or shoot down any drone that violates airspace restrictions over a U.S. base and is deemed a security risk.

Navy Capt. Jeff Davis told Pentagon reporters Monday that a classified policy was approved in July. On Friday, additional public information was sent to military bases around the country so officials can alert their communities about the restrictions and the actions the military can take.

He said the new policy provides details about the actions the military can take to stop any threat, including destroying or seizing any unmanned aircraft — including the smaller ones that the general public can easily buy — that is flown over a base.

“The increase of commercial and private drones in the U.S. has raised our concerns with regards to safety and security of our installations,” Davis said. “Protecting our force remains a top priority, and that’s why DoD issued this very specific but classified policy, developed with the FAA and our inter-agency partners, that details how DoD personnel may counter the unmanned aircraft threat.”

He said that the actions taken by military officials at the bases to address a threat posed by a drone could include “incapacitating or destroying them. And they could also be seized as well for part of investigations.”

Davis said the military has always had the authority to defend the bases and troops, “but this I think makes it a little more solidified with what we’re able to do, and it’s been completely coordinated with the FAA.”

He said part of the effort to release the new guidance was to insure that commanders distribute information to the communities surrounding their bases so that the public knows what could happen if someone flies a drone over a military installation.

psydude posted:

I like how this does nothing to really help the middle class or upper middle class, but makes sure to give rich people a massive tax break (assuming the current tax brackets and cutoffs map to the new ones, per that chart), while throwing a bone to the lowest tax bracket to make them think about switching teams.

Arc Light posted:

As noted earlier in this thread, the overriding sentiment on the part of service chiefs/secretaries tends to be "stay out of it" when it comes to domestic matters.

FrozenVent posted:

Hey I'm the guy who used to drive the freighters your skipper was so worried about.

We thought he was an absolute dolt.

The VHF is not a collision avoidance tool. Don't loving talk to me unless you have good reason to.

Dead Reckoning posted:

It's a federal felony punishable by up to five years, which is pretty severe. My guess would be that they don't want to prove mens rea for aggravated assault or attempted homicide, or open the door to a self defense claim.

shame on an IGA posted:

new loving topic: Chesterfield County, SC is out of gasoline because my neighbors are panicking idiots.

Wasabi the J posted:

tastefully arranged labia posted:

Most expensive travel and security cost. He's still on track to top eight years of Obama costs in his first year.