3 ms·

Can't tell if the comment is satire. I guess it's best to assume it is and move on, since any discussion based on the assumption that it's not satire has alread

Can't tell if the comment is satire. I guess it's best to assume it is and move on, since any discussion based on the assumption that it's not satire has already taken place many times, following predictable paths. Except that I can't keep myself from pointing out the orders of magnitude of difference in effectiveness between a cohesive, trained and organised force and a bunch of individuals, even if they were equally armed, so I don't even get the point of this idea if it's made as a joke.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
lovemenot 7y ago
>> ... the orders of magnitude of difference in effectiveness between a cohesive, trained and organised force and a bunch of individuals True for a head-on conflict, but the story in the article has the organised forces' equipment in a vulnerable place - 65Kft above a city. Asymmetric activity in such a theatre would favour the armed civilian, for now at least. Ground-based coordinated tracking with 1W laser on rudimentary automatic control could ground such devices. The gas-bag being a large, vulnerable target. The relative ease of downing a tracking device, capturing, reverse-engineering then publicly reporting its capabilities should help keep them in check. For now.
- nosianu 7y ago
  You keep making really ridiculous assertions, my dear keyboard warrior. You and all the American gun nuts. Mind you, I served in the army (not the US one), battle tanks, so I'm hardly a pacifist. But you guys are just loudmouths who play too many video games and see too many Hollywood hero movies. No you won't win - and you will not even fight, apart from some very few not so bright people. Because you value your life way too much, liker 99.9% of everybody else faced with overwhelming odds. The forces the US army is up against are not unorganized, they have pretty good training and equipment - and support from foreign governments. They are not desperate lone fighters.
  - lovemenot 7y ago
    Haha. You apparently don't know my identity. Not that it's special or anything. But it's not American. Anyway, I realise now that you were not really responding to what I said. And clearly not to me personally, as a non-American. You just needed a place to get up on your high horse.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

lovemenot 7y ago

>> ... the orders of magnitude of difference in effectiveness between a cohesive, trained and organised force and a bunch of individuals True for a head-on conflict, but the story in the article has the organised forces' equipment in a vulnerable place - 65Kft above a city. Asymmetric activity in such a theatre would favour the armed civilian, for now at least. Ground-based coordinated tracking with 1W laser on rudimentary automatic control could ground such devices. The gas-bag being a large, vulnerable target. The relative ease of downing a tracking device, capturing, reverse-engineering then publicly reporting its capabilities should help keep them in check. For now.

nosianu 7y ago
You keep making really ridiculous assertions, my dear keyboard warrior. You and all the American gun nuts. Mind you, I served in the army (not the US one), battle tanks, so I'm hardly a pacifist. But you guys are just loudmouths who play too many video games and see too many Hollywood hero movies. No you won't win - and you will not even fight, apart from some very few not so bright people. Because you value your life way too much, liker 99.9% of everybody else faced with overwhelming odds. The forces the US army is up against are not unorganized, they have pretty good training and equipment - and support from foreign governments. They are not desperate lone fighters.
- lovemenot 7y ago
  Haha. You apparently don't know my identity. Not that it's special or anything. But it's not American. Anyway, I realise now that you were not really responding to what I said. And clearly not to me personally, as a non-American. You just needed a place to get up on your high horse.