US Announces Plans To Arm Domestic Surveillance Drones With Missiles

From the article:

Col. Kevin Bradley, commander of the 174th Fighter Wing, has said that any Reaper drones that eventually fly out of Hancock would not be equipped with missiles or bombs. No training would take place within civilian air space, Bradley said.

The drones would be armed with live ordnance only when used at firing ranges at Fort Drum near Watertown. Central New York peace activists have protested the Air National Guard's decision to base the drones at Hancock Field.

Which doesn't support the headline of your post.

Originally posted by GoldenRuled
***The US military has revealed that stronger and more powerful versions of the famed Predator drones, known as MQ-9 Reaper drones, are being fitted with missiles and other explosive ordinances as part of a deployment of 30,000 drones authorized to fly over the US by the NDAA and the armed drones will now be operating inside the United States.***
Twitter
www.syracuse.com...

Your quote looks like the Alexander Higgins version. Alexander Higgins Version

His "no link" is a pain. It's easier to use the Twitter link; but, for those who avoid Twitter - see below.

Try this - remove "blog and the slash".
retype as "http://blog" (no quotes of course)
then a period (dot)
copy and paste the longer part of the URL from next line

blog.... alexanderhiggins.com/2012/05/30/announces-plans-to-arm-domestic-surveillance-drones-missiles-139411/

What I see when I read www.syracuse.com... is this.

Col. Kevin Bradley, commander of the 174th Fighter Wing, has said that any Reaper drones that eventually fly out of Hancock would not be equipped with missiles or bombs. No training would take place within civilian air space, Bradley said.

The drones would be armed with live ordnance only when used at firing ranges at Fort Drum near Watertown. Central New York peace activists have protested the Air National Guard's decision to base the drones at Hancock Field.

As you see, two different versions of the story. Alexander Higgins gave the Syracuse URL as his source; but, his words don't match up.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Fear mongering?!? You think this is a logical and acceptable use in crime prevention? Tazers, rubber bullets, tear gas, and ANYTHING else they want to strap to the belly of that aircraft. I suppose you are right about paranoia. Not like our gov would do anything unconstitutional like lie or strong arm people into getting what they want.
Oh wait! "The drones would be armed with live ordnance only when used at firing ranges at Fort Drum near Watertown."
Why practice something that will never be used?

Originally posted by Wildbob77
A quote from the article

"Col. Kevin Bradley, commander of the 174th Fighter Wing, has said that any Reaper drones that eventually fly out of Hancock would not be equipped with missiles or bombs. No training would take place within civilian air space, Bradley said. "

So according to the article that your linked, the drones would not be armed.

Further in the article they did talk about using weapons only for testing.

I think your headline is misleading.

Not only that, but I wish people would stop and think for a moment about how ludicrous the notion really is in the first place. Drones armed with missiles monintoring our skies? Are there people that really think at the present time that our military would actually drop a missile on Americans on our own soil? For what reason? Where is the logic in this?

Fear mongering on steroids. Drones used to spy.....I don't doubt that, but when people start this talk like these drones are gonna start dropping missiles on your next door neighbor here in the U.S., I have to say it's time to take a breather from conspiracy websites.

reply to post by NightGypsy

Im basing my opinion on past actions. A leopard can't change it's spots. I don't think TPTB are there yet, but I do think it's there final destination.
Here's a link I just found seemingly interesting. From january but related.
www.fas.org...

The OP's headline is exactly like Alexander Higgin's

US Announces Plans To Arm Domestic Surveillance Drones With Missiles

- the text as quoted by our OP is like Alexander Higgins - but the SOURCE used by Alexander Higgins doesn't have the same text, and makes it clear that arming the drones is not on the table.

Please don't argue, the OP reported correctly in the opening post ... it's just that the original post's source information ADDED the bit about arming with missiles.

OP, look at the Syracuse Link.

This is an unintentional hoax.

There, I called it.

Originally posted by theconspirator
Even if a drone kills an innocent and its all over the MSM. Nothing will happen. The government doesnt care, and the people dont care either.

That's right....jump right on the bandwagon.......no need to stop and think how ludicrous the whole idea is in the first place.

Originally posted by GoldenRuled
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Fear mongering?!? You think this is a logical and acceptable use in crime prevention? Tazers, rubber bullets, tear gas, and ANYTHING else they want to strap to the belly of that aircraft. I suppose you are right about paranoia. Not like our gov would do anything unconstitutional like lie or strong arm people into getting what they want.
Oh wait! "The drones would be armed with live ordnance only when used at firing ranges at Fort Drum near Watertown."
Why practice something that will never be used?

edit on 31-5-2012 by GoldenRuled because: (no reason given)

You think it ISN'T fear mongering to claim armed drones are flying over the US, then to source an article that states, flat out, that it isnt true?

Yes, that would be fear mongering my friend.

Why practice something that will never be used? Why have something if you never practice with it? And no one said they would never be used. In a time of civil unrest, im sure they will be. What I am also sure of, though, is that this is fear mongering at its best.

Take an issue that already scares people. Make them think that its even worse than that, that their lives are in danger.

rinse.
Repeat.

Originally posted by HEYJOSE
Could this be why they took GPS coordinates of homes during the last census? Welcome to the Totalitarian state of Amerika.

probably, especially when you consider the property perimeter wasn't good enough, they wanted the coordinates for the front door.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by GoldenRuled
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Fear mongering?!? You think this is a logical and acceptable use in crime prevention? Tazers, rubber bullets, tear gas, and ANYTHING else they want to strap to the belly of that aircraft. I suppose you are right about paranoia. Not like our gov would do anything unconstitutional like lie or strong arm people into getting what they want.
Oh wait! "The drones would be armed with live ordnance only when used at firing ranges at Fort Drum near Watertown."
Why practice something that will never be used?

edit on 31-5-2012 by GoldenRuled because: (no reason given)

You think it ISN'T fear mongering to claim armed drones are flying over the US, then to source an article that states, flat out, that it isnt true?

Yes, that would be fear mongering my friend.

Why practice something that will never be used? Why have something if you never practice with it? And no one said they would never be used. In a time of civil unrest, im sure they will be. What I am also sure of, though, is that this is fear mongering at its best.

Take an issue that already scares people. Make them think that its even worse than that, that their lives are in danger.

rinse.
Repeat.

You mean like the reason we are given in the name of all this frivolous spending on unconstitutional eavesdropping? Do you seriously think another plane in this country will EVER get hijacked again where the hijacker isn't fed a boot in the @$$ by fellow passengers? But then on your side, why not release the info? Why do we have to sue to get a vague answer of what's being ridiculously denied? The gov denies chemtrails yet sport the patents of these mythical sights since the 60's. I don't care what source 1 may have, if it's out there, it was leaked or put out there as propaganda or conditioning. Prove me wrong.

Originally posted by GoldenRuled

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by GoldenRuled
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Fear mongering?!? You think this is a logical and acceptable use in crime prevention? Tazers, rubber bullets, tear gas, and ANYTHING else they want to strap to the belly of that aircraft. I suppose you are right about paranoia. Not like our gov would do anything unconstitutional like lie or strong arm people into getting what they want.
Oh wait! "The drones would be armed with live ordnance only when used at firing ranges at Fort Drum near Watertown."
Why practice something that will never be used?

edit on 31-5-2012 by GoldenRuled because: (no reason given)

You think it ISN'T fear mongering to claim armed drones are flying over the US, then to source an article that states, flat out, that it isnt true?

Yes, that would be fear mongering my friend.

Why practice something that will never be used? Why have something if you never practice with it? And no one said they would never be used. In a time of civil unrest, im sure they will be. What I am also sure of, though, is that this is fear mongering at its best.

Take an issue that already scares people. Make them think that its even worse than that, that their lives are in danger.

rinse.
Repeat.

You mean like the reason we are given in the name of all this frivolous spending on unconstitutional eavesdropping? Do you seriously think another plane in this country will EVER get hijacked again where the hijacker isn't fed a boot in the @$$ by fellow passengers? But then on your side, why not release the info? Why do we have to sue to get a vague answer of what's being ridiculously denied? The gov denies chemtrails yet sport the patents of these mythical sights since the 60's. I don't care what source 1 may have, if it's out there, it was leaked or put out there as propaganda or conditioning. Prove me wrong.

edit on 31-5-2012 by GoldenRuled because: (no reason given)

Prove you wrong? How about you provide proof for any of your claims. Better yet, why dont you explain what this rant has to do with the topic at hand.