A word of warning before reading this article: I, Iassen Donov, am as pro-drone as you can get. Foreign Terrorists? United States al-Qaeda members? Terrorists on allied soil? I’m even for the use of armed drones on U.S. soil in extreme circumstances. Basically, I’m all about dropping bombs on no-gooders regardless of citizenship or race (I’m not prejudiced).
This talk all started when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a memo that it is possible that a “hypothetical emergency” and “very unlikely scenario” can lead to a drone strike on American soil. Of course, the populace went into an uproar without taking the time to sit back and actually think outside the box utilizing the common sense approach. But this is ‘Murica, we don’t do that nonsense here, we instead rage at the drop of a hat – almost on par with Muslim raging. Except we use Facebook. If we actually think there will never be a cause to have armed drone capabilities on the continental U.S., then we have ultimately failed as a nation to secure this country.
Okay I digressed there a little bit, let’s get back on track with the feasibility of using armed drones in the homeland. It is honestly very feasible and generally won’t be too much of a hassle to get pretty good, timely and well-armed coverage over the nation. Three strategically placed MQ-9 Reapers (one of the drones we most commonly use) could easily cover 50% of the nation, including almost the entire Eastern seaboard, our entire border with Mexico, and pretty much the entire Southwest region of the U.S. At $36.8 million a pop for a single Reaper, that’s not too bad. Legally, all armed drones would most likely have to be owned and operated by law enforcement agencies and personnel – most likely federal or possibly even the National Guard as the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to them.
You are probably asking yourself: “What scenarios could we possibly find a need for drone strikes?!” I came up with a couple, and I’ve thought about it for about 30 seconds.