<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rapid Fire 02/09/06</title>
	<atom:link href="http://defensetech.org/2006/02/09/rapid-fire-020906/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://defensetech.org/2006/02/09/rapid-fire-020906/</link>
	<description>The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 17:00:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: roadrage</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2006/02/09/rapid-fire-020906/#comment-122116</link>
		<dc:creator>roadrage</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 May 2006 08:30:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=1847#comment-122116</guid>
		<description>To &quot;pedestrian&quot;: the US Army already did an open competition for who would be their official Small UAV, in 2005. The RQ-11 Raven won by a large margin. Cyberbug (and its manufacturer, Cyber Defense Systems) could not meet the requirements. Cheap doesn&#039;t matter if it cannot do the job! The military beats the living crap out of their SUAV systems and has high performance demands, neither of which the CyberBug can keep up with. However, there are probably other markets (non-military) where it might make a better showing.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To “pedestrian”: the US Army already did an open competition for who would be their official Small UAV, in 2005. The RQ-11 Raven won by a large margin. Cyberbug (and its manufacturer, Cyber Defense Systems) could not meet the requirements. Cheap doesn’t matter if it cannot do the job! The military beats the living crap out of their SUAV systems and has high performance demands, neither of which the CyberBug can keep up with. However, there are probably other markets (non-military) where it might make a better showing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trustbutverify</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2006/02/09/rapid-fire-020906/#comment-122115</link>
		<dc:creator>Trustbutverify</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2006 22:42:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=1847#comment-122115</guid>
		<description>I guess I&#039;m not being skeptical enough- I just don&#039;t see the beef with the foiled shoe-bomb plot. The question seems to be &quot;How can you have a hijacking with shoe bombs?&quot; and the answer which occurs is that threatening to blow up an aircraft in flight would work pretty well. In fact, the 9-11 commission report states that one team of hijackers claimed to have a bomb on board. I shouldn&#039;t be surprised if other folks have brought some Semtex on a commercial flight and threatened to set it off if the crew didn&#039;t set a course for Beirut, but to be honest I&#039;m too tired to bother.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess I’m not being skeptical enough– I just don’t see the beef with the foiled shoe-bomb plot. The question seems to be “How can you have a hijacking with shoe bombs?” and the answer which occurs is that threatening to blow up an aircraft in flight would work pretty well. In fact, the 9–11 commission report states that one team of hijackers claimed to have a bomb on board. I shouldn’t be surprised if other folks have brought some Semtex on a commercial flight and threatened to set it off if the crew didn’t set a course for Beirut, but to be honest I’m too tired to bother.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

