The Wire - December 20, 2024

//The Wire//2000Z December 20, 2024//
//ROUTINE//
//BLUF: FAA ENACTS MORE NO-FLY-ZONES AROUND ELECTRICAL SUBSTATIONS IN TRI-STATE AREA.//
-----BEGIN TEARLINE-----
-International Events-
Germany: This evening a vehicle-ramming attack took place at a Christmas Markt in Magdeburg. A vehicle rammed into a crowd of people partaking in celebrations, killing 11x and wounding upwards of 60x people. AC: As this incident is currently developing at the time of this report casualty figures will likely be revised as the situation develops.
-HomeFront-
Washington D.C. – An agreement has not yet been reached in Congress regarding the budgetary continuing resolution, indicating that a government shutdown may begin at midnight.
Northeast: Throughout the region more flight restrictions have been emplaced, with 8x new airspace closures being announced throughout the tri-state area. Continuing the trend from New Jersey, the airspace closures are largely centered around electrical substations located on Long Island.
-----END TEARLINE-----
Analyst Comments: In the closed-door meetings amongst high-ranking counterterrorism officials, it would seem that no one has pondered the reasoning as to why our critical infrastructure sites do not already have no-fly-zones around them. This is largely due to the historical analysis that the implementation of such can actually cause more harm than good, mostly because it highlights exactly which sites are most vulnerable to drone attacks.
Additionally, most of the no-fly-zones have been emplaced with parameters that are largely ineffective. For instance, most of the TFRs have been enacted covering the airspace from surface level to 400 feet Above Ground Level (AGL). This is not just a random number, this is the parameter set by the FAA for the use of recreational drones. Without special approval, recreational drones can’t be flown at an altitude of over 400 feet AGL in the United States. From a counterterrorism perspective, this is utter nonsense. No would-be terrorist seeking to use a drone to target critical infrastructure is going to play by the rules.
Once again, this small detail dismissed by most is a massive ‘tell’ that indicates how incapable federal agencies are. Remember, the FBI is coming at the issue from the angle they always do…that they can’t stop any terror attack that they don’t have a hand in planning and carrying out themselves. In short, if a would-be attacker doesn’t get groomed and assisted by the FBI at some point during their attack preparations, the FBI is powerless to stop (or even know about) the attack in the first place. For instance, the FBI is coming off of their recent bust, the November arrest of Skyler Philippi, who was allegedly planning to use a drone to attack an electrical substation in Nashville. This case involved the FBI choosing to provide materiel support to a well-known mentally unstable individual, to include providing attack plans, explosives, and assistance at the attack site on the day of the planned attack.
This is the mindset federal agents are operating from; that terrorism as the American people instinctively know it doesn’t really exist, and that any serious threat to the homeland simply can’t materialize without the FBI’s help. This is a very dangerous perspective to operate from, as it very obviously injects ego into counterterrorism doctrine. Putting up a no-fly zone around electrical substations strongly indicates this hubris; anyone with any minuscule counterterrorism experience can assert that these no-fly zones are going to do more harm than good because the lawful users of drones are not causing the problems. From the perspective of warfare doctrine, wargaming this decision for five minutes continues to demonstrate how bad of an idea this is. Much like how any obstacle on the battlefield must be observed at all times, the implementation of a no-fly-zone must be followed up with a layered defense. It does no good to close airspace if the means are not in place to enforce that closure, as you’ve just given away critical intelligence for nothing. From a defensive standpoint, airspace closures are a critical part of a defense-in-depth plan; by enacting a no-fly zone around a critical site, anyone who is violating that airspace closure would be demonstrating a Hostile Act as far as most Rules of Engagement go. This provides more information to the defender, and is a crucial initial step in the Targeting Cycle. In short, when properly implemented, airspace closures are a crucial tool in the counterterrorism toolbox…but when implemented poorly, airspace closures highlight more vulnerabilities than they prevent.
Obviously, any serious insurgent hellbent on causing destruction in the United States would not really benefit from the US government identifying vulnerable critical infrastructure; any dedicated insurgent is going to already know where the vulnerable sites are. Thus, the larger concern is simply related to saturation. Now that the authorities have so conveniently identified our most critical infrastructure with flashing neon signs, the total number of idiots who otherwise would not be a national security threat now have their attack planning work done for them. So in effect, the total number of people that could potentially cause problems is vastly increased by a visit from the good idea fairy. On the face of it, putting up no-fly zones seems to be a good idea to weed out the legitimate and legally operated recreational drones from the more malign threats. The problem with this is that, in a “yes man” culture, no one is willing to challenge the judgement call that the no-fly-zones are a good idea.
The closed-door meetings surrounding this issue are without question a circle of idiocracy probably centered around the perceived benefits of existing drone regulations; One federal agency (the FAA) assures another federal agency (the FBI) that all consumer drones are programmed to not fly within TFRs, and that the users phone won’t allow the drone to takeoff. The FBI, being satisfied with this, doesn’t know that their own efforts to help the Ukrainians use drones in war have indeed come back to haunt the United States. It isn’t 2015 any more; now the biggest threat doesn’t come from Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) drones that have been retrofitted to carry explosives, but from purpose-built FPV drones that operate completely differently. The U.S. government will 100% use the New Jersey situation as a way of pushing for taking more rights away from the People. However, the problem with using the field of counterterrorism as a political tool is that the whole field becomes rather poor at its main purpose, stopping terror attacks.
Quite literally no one in government can understand that they are making decisions in a vacuum, without all of the data. And somehow, federal counterterrorism agencies have the uncanny ability to take a good idea and warp it beyond any sort of effectiveness (because everyone is fighting for their resume bullet points). Without question, when the day comes that a drone is used by a malign actor for an attack, the dozen federal agencies all involved in this will shrug their shoulders with apathetic egoism, knowing that they “did their job the best they could”. This issue with this logic is that it’s 2024, and every American can clearly see that this is not the case, with random accounts on Twitter providing more counterterrorism benefit than the entire Department of Homeland Security. For the first time in history, a populace has the ability to assess terrorism risks with a greater accuracy than the federal agencies that have unlimited control over all data.
Perhaps most perplexingly is that these no-fly zones directly and clearly contradict the US government’s statements that the drone sightings throughout the region are not a threat. If the drones are not a threat, or merely a case of mistaken identity, why the no-fly zones specifically created for national defense purposes? The implementation of such no-fly zones largely indicates one of two possible theories: That drones are being operated on American soil by malign actors, or that the US government is trying to cover their own tracks regarding their own drone testing, and the no-fly zones are a misdirection attempt. At this point the former theory sounds more likely, as putting large bullseyes on our infrastructure for zero political gain is unlikely to be something that is undertaken. Whereas establishing no-fly-zones that are a feeble counterterrorism attempt that ends up doing more harm than good…that’s perfectly in line with the personalities involved at the higher levels of homeland counterterrorism efforts.
All things considered,
Analyst: S2A1
//END REPORT/