You need to know math for that. To build something that can drop a bomb requires buying two pieces of equipment on amazon that are made completely for civilian use.

You’re definitely right that it’s not unprecedented - and as Americans know all too well, even a single gunman can produce a hundred casualties – but there is something worrisome about further reducing the skill threshold and increasing the likelihood of the attacker getting away cleanly.

I think the main difference is precision and anonymity - mortars are noisy and would attract attention, but a drone fits in a backpack and there’s no obvious connection between the launch site and the targets, so things like ballistics analysis and “shot spotter” systems are less effective. If there’s, say, a hotel or apartment building you’re going from needing to check the roof to needing to worry about every window even on the non-facing sides.

I suspect that triangulating the source of the control signal will be an effective deterrent to people attempting this anonymously. Anything that can fly unaided even without remote control will probably leave some digital fingerprints in its design. For the rest, well I'll admit there's a part of me that hopes it remains only a very small minority that seriously considers this type of terrorism, and that social and political programs keep that segment of the population in check. The realist in me sees the dramatic amount of naivete in that sentiment, but then isn't all hope a fair amount of naive?

I'd imagine as stealth goes, driving up to someone's house is a much more subtle way to deliver a grenade than launching a drone that goes EEEEEEEEEEEE all the way as it is hastily steered to its destination while the operator attempts to avoid bumping into a street lamp and then fiddles with the controls to drop the grenade in such a way it actually detonates before the victim figures out what's going on.

Drones are hardly even a daily occurence let alone frequent enough not to catch anyone's attention. Cars on the other hand are everywhere.

I'd like to revisit this statement in 10 years, if I'm still around:

> "The good news is it would appear very few people are inclined to carry out anonymous bombings, in spite of the ease with which it can be done."

The problem is that if the bomb is intended to kill a specific target, it's much harder to do so anonymously. If it is intended to "send a message", anonymity is usually the opposite of what the bomber wants.

A lot of so-called anonymous attacks also leave traces that can be used to pin the attack on someone if there is sufficient political will to lead a thorough investigation. And of course the victim can still decide to interpret them differently even if you didn't want to remain anonymous. Consider for example how Turkey would attribute acts of terrorism in Turkey to the PKK despite ISIS claiming them, because it was politically useful to justify a focus on attacking PKK-aligned Rojava in Syria even when it meant aligning with ISIS.

I guess what's saving us from anonymous bombings being commonplace is that few people are willing to carry them out, foolhardy to do so despite the risk of being caught, competent enough to carry them out successfully and sufficiently motivated to cause the death and injury of their victims. And of course the people most likely to be targeted tend to also be much harder to target.

And on an individual grievance level: while it's almost trivially possible to kill someone without being found out, it's much harder to kill a specific someone you want to kill without being found out.