Super Bowl Security to Shoot Down Drones within 32 miles of stadium

We need a gofundme account to fund whoever wants to go launch some drones (preferably lots of them) all over the TFR this Sunday. Haha. Talk about cheap entertainment.
 
Just curious.. Most here laugh at and mock security of all sorts.
So, in your opinion, is the answer to have zero security?
 
The size of the area would seem to make it an unenforceable prohibition for something as small as a hobby drone. Depending on whether they're talking statute miles or nautical miles, it's either 3200 square miles or 4100.
 
I'm really tempted to offer a reward for the best video of the Superbowl(tm) taken by a drone.
 
Kritchlow said:
Just curious.. Most here laugh at and mock security of all sorts.
So, in your opinion, is the answer to have zero security?
Click to expand...

Yes, because it's either all or nothing.
:rolleyes:

What I'm mocking is the 32 mile radius rule, and the threat to shoot them down with either snipers or F-16's over a range of populated areas (the whole peninsula) to the boonies.
 
Jeffythequick said:
Yes, because it's either all or nothing.
:rolleyes:

What I'm mocking is the 32 mile radius rule, and the threat to shoot them down with either snipers or F-16's over a range of populated areas (the whole peninsula) to the boonies.
Click to expand...

But nobody is threatening to shoot down drones with snipers or F-16s. I posted the FAA page and video, and it does not say that.
 
Palmpilot said:
Free helmets for the fans!
Click to expand...

At least make them look cool:

0K1QDQHA--346x212.jpg
 
Kritchlow said:
Just curious.. Most here laugh at and mock security of all sorts.
So, in your opinion, is the answer to have zero security?
Click to expand...

Zero security for public assemblage same as its been since the beginning of humanity, until very recently. Sounds good to me. Insert pithy quote from idiot about giving up freedom for security and getting neither.:rofl:
Are you afraid of everything or just a real good sheep?
 
Indeed. Also when is the last time security did much of anything?
 
MAKG1 said:
Atlanta olympics? Just about every Raiders game?

Many more minor security problem such as the excessively drunk.
Click to expand...

On yes we must have 'controlled' public drunkenness. Enough drunkenness to make someone gobs of money and to be exciting to the ladies, but not quite enough to be dangerous to the ladies. Stupid. No safety is guaranteed ladies and if you want fun in exciting places well you just might get someone else's idea of fun thrust upon you.
 
Phoenix said:
On yes we must have 'controlled' public drunkenness. Enough drunkenness to make someone gobs of money and to be exciting to the ladies, but not quite enough to be dangerous to the ladies. Stupid. No safety is guaranteed ladies and if you want fun in exciting places well you just might get someone else's idea of fun thrust upon you.
Click to expand...

Who said anything at all about the "ladies?"

Here is what can happen at a sporting event with insufficient security: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heysel_Stadium_disaster
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Small price to pay for ensuring that no video is taken that isn't licensed by the NFL.
Click to expand...
Yep, there it is. The real reason to keep drones away from the stadium, not for public safety, but to make sure there aren't any unlicensed videos taken of the game. I wish I was kidding...
 
Jeffythequick said:
Taken from the skies of Altamont, California, a mere 32 miles away.
Click to expand...
Even better? How 'bout a drone flyover at the singing of The Star Spangled Banner?

"...O’er the land of the free and the.." Buzzzzzzzzzzz <sounds of several drones over-flying the stadium> "WTF!"
 
Phoenix said:
Zero security for public assemblage same as its been since the beginning of humanity, until very recently. Sounds good to me. Insert pithy quote from idiot about giving up freedom for security and getting neither.:rofl:
Are you afraid of everything or just a real good sheep?
Click to expand...

Really? Zero security for public assemblage..??

You never saw law enforcement or security at a concert or baseball games in earlier years?
I grew up going to Fenway Park, and I can assure you they had security. Perhaps that's the only place that has it.

As far as your question, I'm a bit confused what led you to ask that?
 
James331 said:
Indeed. Also when is the last time security did much of anything?
Click to expand...

It does a lot. It's a deterrent.

Can't win with some people. If there's a problem they say "see, security didn't stop it". If there's no problem they say "see they didn't stop anything".
 
Kritchlow said:
It does a lot. It's a deterrent.



Can't win with some people. If there's a problem they say "see, security didn't stop it". If there's no problem they say "see they didn't stop anything".
Click to expand...


It doesn't deter anyone who's actually going to do it.

And you can just stop at "can't win" on the second sentence. No point in qualifying it.

If someone is bent on doing something it'll be done. The rest is just theater.
 
denverpilot said:
It doesn't deter anyone who's actually going to do it.

And you can just stop at "can't win" on the second sentence. No point in qualifying it.

If someone is bent on doing something it'll be done. The rest is just theater.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of this. I do believe it deters many, but certainly if someone is intent on doing something, eventually they will make it happen.
 
JFK had a lot of security. It didn't seem to help him.
 
1600vw said:
JFK had a lot of security. It didn't seem to help him.
Click to expand...

And they enhanced security.. Who was the last president to ride in a convertible?
How many presidents have been shot while in the car since?
 
Absolutist thinking says that something is either 100% effective, or it's worthless. We need to try to be smarter than that.
 
Kritchlow said:
And they enhanced security.. Who was the last president to ride in a convertible?
How many presidents have been shot while in the car since?
Click to expand...

Ok you don't like that example...President Ford. He had a lot of security and it did not help him.
 
1600vw said:
Ok you don't like that example...President Ford. He had a lot of security and it did not help him.
Click to expand...

The gun didn't go off, because there was no round in the chamber. If the Secret Service hadn't wrestled her to the ground, she might have rectified that error.
 
teejayevans said:
Can they pick up drones on radar,I've heard them have problems with Cessnas?
Click to expand...


It depends on the size of the drone. We have no problems finding Cessnas if that's what we're looking for.

Any fighters that they have airborne are not for the "drone threat".


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I'm not sure the structural limits of the blimp make it very well suited for being towed at fighter speeds. But we could give 'er a whirl...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Palmpilot said:
The gun didn't go off, because there was no round in the chamber. If the Secret Service hadn't wrestled her to the ground, she might have rectified that error.
Click to expand...
Right. He lived because there was no round in the chamber. Maybe you prefer Reagan as an example? Obama walked along outside of his car at his inauguration.

If you're going to endorse some security policy, you should be able to articulate what threats it mitigates and how it does that.

TFRs around the president exist to give the USSS time to get him away from the threat. If someone violates this TFR with hostile intent, how are you going to move the stadium? Does anyone really believe F15 are going to shoot down a US civilian plane over downtown SFO without absolute confirmation of hostile intent? Of course not.
 
Lindberg said:
Right. He lived because there was no round in the chamber. Maybe you prefer Reagan as an example? Obama walked along outside of his car at his inauguration.

If you're going to endorse some security policy, you should be able to articulate what threats it mitigates and how it does that.

TFRs around the president exist to give the USSS time to get him away from the threat. If someone violates this TFR with hostile intent, how are you going to move the stadium? Does anyone really believe F15 are going to shoot down a US civilian plane over downtown SFO without absolute confirmation of hostile intent? Of course not.
Click to expand...

But it will give them enough time to intercept the aircraft...
 
denverpilot said:
It doesn't deter anyone who's actually going to do it.

And you can just stop at "can't win" on the second sentence. No point in qualifying it.

If someone is bent on doing something it'll be done. The rest is just theater.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's test this.

Let's do the next Super Bowl with NO security. None. I'll buy you tickets.

Will you go with your family?

I sure would not. Don't think many people would.
 
RalphInCA said:
Ok, let's test this.



Let's do the next Super Bowl with NO security. None. I'll buy you tickets.



Will you go with your family?



I sure would not. Don't think many people would.
Click to expand...


Sure. Wouldn't bother me at all. Thanks for the rather expensive ticket! While you're at it, 50 yard line would be great. And not too high up.

I don't make decisions for others about how they spend their time, so Karen could decide for herself.

Anyone trying anything is going to be beat to a bloody pulp anyway, security or not. Seen how folks react to people doing suspicious things on airliners lately?

With no security there's nothing to stop anyone who wanted to from being armed, too. In whatever fashion they preferred.

Should be a reasonable "deterrent" if those supposedly work (they don't, but we'll pretend since you've made up a different make believe land similar to the one they're selling as "secure").
 
denverpilot said:
Sure. Wouldn't bother me at all. Thanks for the rather expensive ticket! While you're at it, 50 yard line would be great. And not too high up.

I don't make decisions for others about how they spend their time, so Karen could decide for herself.

Anyone trying anything is going to be beat to a bloody pulp anyway, security or not. Seen how folks react to people doing suspicious things on airliners lately?

With no security there's nothing to stop anyone who wanted to from being armed, too. In whatever fashion they preferred.

Should be a reasonable "deterrent" if those supposedly work (they don't, but we'll pretend since you've made up a different make believe land similar to the one they're selling as "secure").
Click to expand...

I don't think you have thought this through, and it's easy to be brave on the Internet, but since I don't think there will be NO security for the next Super Bowl, we're not going to be able to test this theory out.

And I don't think I would want to be jamed in a stadium twith thousands of armed, trigger happy, testosterone filled drunks. One shot and you would have stampedes and lots of misdirected shooting hitting innocents.

Would you want your wife and kids in that kind of environment?

Too bad. I'm sure some interesting stories would come out of it. They might even have made a movie out of it. "Super Bowl 51: Chaos and Mahem"

 
Last edited:
RalphInCA said:
I don't think you have thought this through, and it's easy to be brave on the Internet, but since I don't think there will be NO security for the next Super Bowl, we're not going to be able to test this theory out.



And I don't think I would want to be jamed in a stadium thousands of armed, trigger happy, testosterone filled drunks. One shot and you would have stampedes and lots of misdirected shooting hitting innocents.



Too bad. I'm sure some interesting stories would come out of it. They might even have made a move out of it. "Super Bowl 51: Chaos and Mahem"



Click to expand...


Or you just have a ridiculous imagination and want badly to believe the security hype.

Have gone to larger events with more people with far less or even no "security".

Spent nearly every weekend in an NFL Stadium in the late 1980s (working). They barely checked backpacks back then. Mostly just to make sure you weren't smuggling your own alcohol because it cut into profits. We employees had zero security checks other than showing a badge that didn't have our photo on it.

The biggest problem was drunkenness and usually they hurt themselves falling down, or off of things. I suspect it still is the biggest cause of severe injury.

I also suspect whatever silly security is in place, every employee of every contractor has figured out how to get around it, just like I knew how to back then, and later knew how anyone could get anything they wanted on an airline ramp when I worked in that job.

Hell I just watched people smuggle gallons of liquor onto a cruise liner to avoid paying corkage fees or buying the cruise line's alcohol, just last week.

It's wonderful security theatre for the masses. All security has holes. For the right price someone will even make a hole.
 
RalphInCA said:
Ok, let's test this.

Let's do the next Super Bowl with NO security. None. I'll buy you tickets.

Will you go with your family?

I sure would not. Don't think many people would.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that the $3000 tickets would be most of the security that you need. Do ticket takers count as "security"?
 
I watched an intercept of a twin, flying down Georgia Avenue in Maryland, a couple miles outside Washington DC. . .as I recall, it was some governor's airplane, and ATC had cleared him in after a xpdr failure. Given the usual stellar inter-gov't comminications, and lack of co-location, the "other" Fed players dialed up an intercept. . .

But I digress - what was on my mind was weapons selection - two F-16s, so the choice was cannon or missle; either way, a surburban block or two was about to get a steel sh*t storm. Just the engine blocks slone would be lethal. . .flaming wreckage, cannon rounds, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top