In your article:
With some of these scenarios, it is unlikely that drones pose a unique threat, at least not any more so than an attacker on the ground. Even if one were able to acquire lightweight explosives or chemical agents to attach to a drone, the physical size of commercially available drones creates limitations on the attacker’s ability to inflict harm. A DJI Phantom, for example, has a payload capacity of around 1.8 lbs. Off-the-shelf drones generally cannot fly for more than 20 to 30 minutes, and they have a limited range, so an attacker would need to be close to the target. Heavier payloads also diminish range and flight times. Of greater consequence is the potential that an attacker would use a drone to inflict psychological harm—to produce terror—or to conduct assassinations. Even in these scenarios, however, the natural operational limitations on covert activity of this kind of sophistication and complexity would likely doom any plans to use drones for lethal effect.
In his statement to Congress on March 18, Dr. Greg McNeal cautioned against overstating the risks posed by drones and encouraged federal agencies to undertake comprehensive risk assessments before embarking on developing countermeasures. “Congress should ensure that agencies are as concerned with the probability of harm as they are of the possibility of a worst-case scenario,” McNeal explained.
In other words, you can probably achieve a greater effect with a far more simplistic plan.