0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
No recoil to drone if you shoot two things in opposite directions down (and up) the same tube. Plastic tube: very light gun.
the control system would currently require a video link which will give you away and ensure you are caught.
On the battlefield, it would need to recognise combatants rather than faces, so the requirement is the ability to recognise people carrying guns in a combat zone where all the armed people in a defined area can be assumed to be the enemy.
plastic guns do work at very short range with very light projectiles but if you want to kill a human with a single remote shot you need a projectile that will penetrate a skull at near-sonic speed, and this requires a propellant and an accelerating tube.
Quote the control system would currently require a video link which will give you away and ensure you are caught. Not at all. Use a mobile phone for both the video downlink and the control uplink. And don't forget to withold your number. You can be in the crowd or on the other side of the world (roaming charges may apply)
Wrong assumption, irrelevant scenario. The guys carrying guns are idiots. The enemy is the man giving the orders, and being a Man of God, he probably won't be armed. If idiots are walking towards you with weapons, you shoot them before they shoot you - all of them, and anyone who may be carrying weapons or hiding someone who is. If you are not there, they are no threat but you may wish to bomb them anyway. Use a big drone - cheaper than a manned aircraft.
The range needn't be great. Imagine a flock of drones working as a pack and the difficulty an armed combatant would have when faced with a dozen of these things moving in on him from all angles
onto the battlefield......getting away from the distant rocket-firing approach of the kind of drones used today which leads to civilians being hit.
If you are using a phone link, you can be potentially be detected at the time, and you can certainly be detected after the event when you are traced through trig and through CCTV, if you are at the scene. You're right though that you could control it from far away and even from another country, but that could be blocked by putting in sufficient delays to prevent anyone doing this, while any signal of that kind being used to control a drone from far off when the drone is near a potential target could have the connection cut.
If you are fighting against a force like ISIS or the Taleban, they depend on being in large groups to get past local defences - they fight their way in, and then they abuse and kill the inhabitants.
If they were intercepted by drones first
The religious nutter in charge of them should ideally be targeted too, but there will be a string of replacement nutters waiting to take his place.
It is likely of course that they would capture a few drones and try to reverse engineer them, so you need to ensure that only the hardware can be captured while the software remains out of reach
Booting them up in the first place would have to be done in such a way that the software can't be stolen at that stage either.
So, the kind of warfare practised by ISIS and the Taleban is doomed to extinction - it's only a matter of time before they are tackled the right way and find that their whole approach is wrong.
Is there any countries that have a democracy forced upon them by 'outsiders'?
so you need a swarm of cooperating pilots or some very expensive drones, just to kill one person at a time. A nuclear artillery round can wipe out a battallion with a single, cheap, shot, if they are stupid enough to stand close together.
There's the problem. There is no "battlefield" in modern warfare. The bastards drive into undefended civilian areas and start punishing their chosen infidel until the good guys arrive and destroy the city with air strikes and heavy artillery from outside. It's not like "Agincourt with drones."
not particularly large groups. Since the primary target is undefended civilians, one tank or armoured truck plus a dozen infantry can capture a village and kill a thousand people in an hour.
Yep. Faith is the enemy. Only education can defeat it, and that takes a very long time.
You may safely assume that everyone everywhere is writing the same software and indeed building the same or better hardware. Remember that the bad guys in the present conflict have unlimited funding because it comes from the oil that the good guys need to pursue the war.
There's still a battlefield - the civilians get the hell out of the way and two sides fight it out in a messy way by lurking behind whatever protective features of the environment they can find, sniping at each other from there. I watched some recent footage of British troops fighting in Afghanistan against the Taleban and was astonished at how primitive the fighting was and how perfectly suited it would be to using robotic devices to flush out the enemy and eliminate them so that people stop sticking their heads up over walls and getting bullets fly at them. They don't even seem to have guns with electronic viewfinders to allow the soldier to keep his head down while only sticking a gun over the top which can be aimed without needing an eye to be physically located over one end of it.
Why "flush out" the enemy? If you know where he is, why not kill him there, with a conventional bomb or shell?
This isn't sport, it's war. He isn't going to be drawn out of cover by a machine
...only by a patrol of potentially killable humans, hence firefights usually start with a landmine or roadside bomb, and the enfilading force will generally have the wit and wherewithal to cover themselves from aerial observation - they have after all been subject to intensive satellite and helicopter surveillance for the last 50 years or so.
Who is the landmine or IED going to target if there are no ground forces there to be attacked?
Military technology is most effective for those organizations that have the advanced technology, and the means of delivering it.
Quote from: David Cooper on 28/09/2014 18:37:11Who is the landmine or IED going to target if there are no ground forces there to be attacked? If there are no ground forces opposing you, you have won the war.
Far from unpopular, the Vietnamese communists, ...
...Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas were democratically elected (just like the Nazis)
...and the Mujahaddin, supported by the CIA, were the local heroes who expelled the Russians.
ISIS was flavor of the month until they started killing westerners and Christians.
There would be no problem with ISIS if it didn't abuse Shias, Kurds and others.
How do you "cut off" an invading force, or worse still, an embedded majority? What on earth do you mean by a "dominant minority"? Isn't that something of an oxymoron, unless you mean a minority with superior weaponry and organisation, which is exactly the definition of ISIS?