The case very recently of the apparent explosive drone attack in Venezuela highlighted something to me which I think is significant about the use of drones in terrorist attacks. It’s not just the technology which offers a new challenge, but there’s another aspect which is interesting or even disturbing related to the psychology of terrorism.
Drones have been used in Iraq and Syria with explosive payloads for a few years now, and I wrote about these a couple of years ago. But this attack in a highly public non “war” venue highlights something new, and something worthy of some thought.
Most terrorist attacks occur with the actual end result being the first the victim and bystanders become aware of it. Attacks using most weapons give no tactical warning:
- You can’t see a bullet fly, you only see its final effect
- You can’t see a mortar round or an artillery round fired towards you.
- You don’t see the booby trap before it explodes because it is hidden
- You don’t see the roadside bomb before it explodes by command because it is hidden
All these limit the response to a specific attack to post-attack responses. It makes the attack somewhat impersonal. Victims accept that they are/were victims in part because of surprise. While the attack may be fearful, after the attack occurs it is more about developing actions that respond to its occurrence.
There are a more limited range of attacks that victims and bystanders have immediate warning of and indeed these have become favoured of late – the rampaging terrorist with a weapon (knives or firearms) or the terrorist using a vehicle (either as a suicide bomb or simply to mow down people in the street.) These attacks sometimes give a few seconds of warning. People can run, they can hide, take cover or in some cases fight back. But they are in their nature more “terrifying” perhaps psychologically because you can see them happening potentially before the denouement. They feel much more personal.
But maybe drone attacks are different again. If we take the supposed Venezuela attack at face value (and there is still confusion over the actual incident), it appears that one or more explosively-laden drones flew over a crowd towards a target before exploding. The delivery mechanism was seen before the explosion(s). The targets and bystanders essentially had a few seconds warning that there was something fearful happening and yet unlike the rampaging terrorist or the vehicle attack, in this case the added third dimension of an aerial attack applies a third dimension, limiting, perhaps the “flee” response and maybe the hide response too. So a much greater degree of helplessness occurs. And the nature of drones then makes them extremely difficult to “fight”. If you have say four or five seconds to respond to an incoming drone with a firearm, well that ain’t gonna work. By the time you have your rifle off your shoulder, and ready to fire it is too fast, and too difficult a target. Plus you have the crowds and public in a built up area – so firearm response is pragmatically a non-starter in most circumstances like the Venezuela attack. There are some directional shoulder “fired” EW weapons, but would you want the drone to crash into the crowd carrying its explosive payload, even if you had the time? The same might apply to some other electronic defensive measures.
Take a look at this link below, supposedly one of a number of drones which exploded in Caracas. Imagine those flying down a street in your city centre and the responses that you as a cop might take. Imagine the perspective of the crowd seeing that happen.
https://twitter.com/CaracasNews24/status/1026193542274867208
Looking at that video, is there something “extra” terrifying about an apparent robotic threat, of flying bombs, able to seek, to follow and to be guided at that pace to a target? It’s very “science fiction” in its novelty. Most people agree that drones will become ubiquitous in coming years, but the demonstrable proof here that they are so weaponisable raises all sorts of interesting questions about public perceptions and threat management driven by the psychological impact they can make.
Thus the drone attack in these circumstances, with the public present, offers new and different challenges for the public and responders. It’s a very different threat than the drone threat in war theatres. Drone attacks such as seen in Venezuela pose the similar psychological impacts as the rampaging terrorist or the terrorist driving a vehicle – but without the terrorist having to put himself at risk. And it’s three-dimensional so two-dimensional security measures such as barriers are negated to a significant degree. How we deal with explosive drone threats in public is the challenge posed. There are solutions but those developing responses need to think things through, and as I hope I have highlighted there are significant crowd management issues that need to happen in parallel.