I've worked in the power utility industry for years.

So, you offer a single anecdote — whatever its merits — to back up the claim that started with "In most cases ...".

I've seen more cases of well-cleaned private parking lots next to snow-boggled public streets than that.

I wonder how lopsided the drone / antidrone equation really is.

According to this article, Western military drones cost $200K apiece (ballpark — I'm sure, the price-range is wide). Russian ones are, probably, half that. Ukrainians are making their own at $60K.

Whatever it is, the cost of a single military drone is tens of thousands.

Now, a hand-held Stinger — capable of bringing down a real aircraft with a pilot fighting for his life — is quoted on Wikipedia costing $38K (though it is unclear, which year dollars those are). That's decidedly less than a drone already.

Considering that a) the anti-drone missiles don't need to be as powerful and strong as Stingers; b) things made in Ukraine (or Russia for that matter) tend to cost a lot less, a usable missile can, probably, be produced for "only" several thousand dollars apiece.

But even if the US made them — and gave to Ukraine — it would still be good bang for the buck, achieving a valuable military objective without giving Russia too much to protest about, because this new weapon would be "non-lethal".

While they may not officially take orders from their superior, the reality is that they do.

Of course! And that's a perfectly normal — as long as the country remains at peace with itself.

Should another civil conflict unravel, however, these arsenals distributed nation-wide and under control of local authorities (each with his own agenda and loyalties) will be part of a problem for any usurper of central power, not part of his solution.

There is no dilemma.

Ah, but there is. On this very board we went from the outrage at the government's unwarranted peeking (yet another manifestation of the already much-discussed spying on citizens) to defending the practice against the crazy Libertarians like myself, who laugh and sneer at the idea, that "taxes are good".

your tenuous grasp of logic

It is not about me, dearest. Shove your ad hominems up, where they'll do more good — such for treating your hemorrhoids.

And 99% of hamas missiles fall down to some farm field, wilderness, and do not do any damage at all.

A bold-faced lie — by an anonymous asshole, no less. The statistics of Iron Dome's effectiveness are being discussed all over the net. The site of consensus cites the following numbers:

In November 2012, during Operation Pillar of Defense, the Iron Dome's effectiveness was estimated by Israeli officials at between 75 and 95 percent. According to Israeli officials, of the approximately 1,000 missiles and rockets fired into Israel by Hamas from the beginning of Operation Pillar of Defense up to 17 November 2012, Iron Dome identified two thirds as not posing a threat and intercepted 90 percent of the remaining 300. During this period the only Israeli casualties were three individuals killed in missile attacks after a malfunction of the Iron Dome system.

So, 2/3rds — not 99% — were deemed not worth intercepting. 270 of the remaining 300 were intercepted. If the thirty rockets, that did get through managed to kill 3 Israelis between them, it is fair to extrapolate, that — without the system in place — the 30 would've been killed.

But good at one thing - defence industry pork money.

Yeah, yeah. Unable to defeat Israel on the battlefields of real wars, the whining Arab pussies have switched to terrorism and propaganda. Trying to convince American taxpayers, their monetary help to Israel is being wasted, is part of the latter.

The problem with fighting $500 drones with $100,000 missiles

You got the equation wrong. Your numbers may be in the ballpark for the IDF vs. Arabs situation — where the cheap but fast-traveling unguided missiles require expensive and sophisticated interception.

The military drones cost a lot more than $500 — they require avionics, reliable remote control, cameras with decent optics, etc. They are also flying a lot slower and so can be intercepted much easier — by a much cheaper missile. Oh, and you can launch many of such missiles at a single drone with relative impunity, whereas Iron Dome must carefully consider, where the fragments will fall in both cases of successful and failed interception.

Ukrainian troops fighting in the East of the country suffer a great deal from the separatists' Russia-provided drones — those transmit signals to Russian artillery right across the border, which then targets Ukrainians with devastating precision. If they could kick those drones out of the sky, life would become much easier.

It would seem, any counter-measure America can help with could be field-tested right away — all without hurting a single human enemy.

How to do it? I used to think, small rockets could be used. Miniaturized copies of the early SAMs, created by the long declassified designs — current generation of drones aren't really made for evading such a thing...

police chiefs and mayors take their orders from governors

No, they don't. There is no chain-of-command in civil government of different levels (such as between state governors and mayors). Mayors are locally elected, not appointed by governors — their authority is derived from the voters. As is the Governors' and the President's too.

governors (who also command the National Guard)

Actually, President is Commander in Chief of all National Guard.

[governors] take orders from Congress / the White House

Nope, they do not. What a silly idea! Do you really need an immigrant to point out these glaring errors in your civics education?!

It got a bit too friendly with russia

You mean, a "Worker's Revolution" made it likely to become USSR's 16th republic — fixed that for you.

That won't happen, simply because it's _convenient_ for western powers to have a bogeyman of their own to keep their populations on a leash

Conspiracy theory nonsense.

There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.

I am well aware of — and generally agree with — the sentiment, but, in my opinion, the current concerns are misplaced.

Until these civilian police are also placed under the same command as the military, the police — along with their advanced weapons — will remain a counterbalance against some future Hugo Chavez...

Yes, the police agencies discussed in TFA are, largely, federal — and thus already under the Commander in Chief's authority. But the local police departments, that are "militarized" nationwide are not.

Let's see you track me when the phone cannot transmit or receive

Let's see you use it as a navigation device in such a state... Google, at least, gives you some value in exchange for your privacy — the navigation instructions you get from Google Maps will consider the actual current driving conditions (as much as Google knows them, of course). To get that information, you must tell Google, where you are — and where you are going...

Their cars aren't on the market yet. They have no data on my driving.

Google Maps — on every Android phone, and on many iPhones as well. If you use it — and many people do — here is, what Google knows about where you've been.

the issue is that the police in this country have shown that they cannot be trusted

No police anywhere in the world can be "trusted" to stick to legal methods in doing their jobs.

Such is their job:

1. they must have severe powers over us to do it at all;
2. those powers often go into their heads — and they are hardly the only government employees, who are convinced, they "know better" than their subjects ever will;
3. they deal with the worst among us quite often (shielding the rest of us from it), which further shapes their opinions and default course of actions.

If anything, American police are, probably, well above your average bribe-taking empty uniform...