| > not shooting them down seems like it could go much worse Sure. But a sensible policy would also minimize the amount of weapons that are deployed in heavily trafficked airspace. That is why the sensible approach is to heavily regulate or even by-default prohibit UAV traffic anywhere near airports or common commercial aircraft routes. In other words, parent post is a false dichotomy. It's possible to design and enforce regulations that 1) minimize danger and 2) enable aircraft controllers and the military to address rogue UAVs before they enter heavily trafficked civilian airspaces. Those regulations should go far beyond "shoot-to-kill near airports", but also don't have to be as encompassing as current bans. Simply deploying weapons in commercial airspace as a complete alternative to legislation and regulation is insane. > Legislating it will only really stop people who don't intend to fly small aircraft into a no-fly-zone anyway. I think you under-estimate the size of the group of people who do dangerous shit without malicious intent. Look at the list of incidents at the end of the article, for instance, and guess at how many of those were intentional. Furthermore, even in the case of malicious intent, crafting regulation that clearly and unambiguously sets expectations can allow regulators and the military to deploy counter-measures long before doing so creates an unacceptable risk to surrounding civilians and infrastructure. |
Hence, my tradeoff is between making it difficult to own or operate a UAV ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES OR ADJACENT TERRITORIES; and making it incredibly improbable and difficult to simply ride one into an airport and cause a disaster, either by accident or on purpose.
My tradeoff also bears on the doubtful effectiveness of the legislative approach to prevent intentional violation of controlled airspace. In this case you require the sentries anyhow.