6 ms·
> Seems like a not-unreasonable comparison today would be "could a civilian kill an armored vehicle?" In that case, isn't the answer a definite yes?
by JshWright 6y ago
> Seems like a not-unreasonable comparison today would be "could a civilian kill an armored vehicle?"
In that case, isn't the answer a definite yes?
- hutzlibu 6y agoOnly if the civilian has a rpg or IED and then he probably would not be a civilian anymore, but a specialized guerilla fighter, if he manages to take out a modern tank.
- egsmi 6y agoA shovel can be a surprisingly effective weapon if properly employed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_trench https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_trench
- tachyonbeam 6y agoOTOH you can also trap an armored vehicle into a hole or mud pit, and the people inside can't stay in there forever, there is also such a thing as a molotov cocktail.
- taneq 6y agoSo a civilian can't kill an armoured vehicle, because if they can kill an armoured vehicle they aren't a civilian?
- tshaddox 6y agoThat’s not so crazy, is it? “Civilian” is used in the thought experiment to refer to an expected level of training, experience, and equipment. You wouldn’t reasonably expect a “civilian” in this context to have an RPG or an attack aircraft. The clear point of the thought experiment is “would a civilian be able to kill an armored vehicle with the level of training, experience, and equipment that would reasonably be expected of a civilian in this context?”
- hamilyon2 6y agoIn some countries, most civilians are former soldiers. Knowing how to destroy an armored vehicle is not a common knowledge around where I live. It is given for granted however that around the world people are creative, can learn new things, and generally could figure out how to make explosives. And I guess they still qualify as civilians.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]