3 ms·

If your local police force started chasing after people using tanks, then well, tanks would no longer be military equipment. Military equipment is any equipmen

by maratd 14y ago

If your local police force started chasing after people using tanks, then well, tanks would no longer be military equipment. Military equipment is any equipment that is predominantly used by the military and not so much by anybody else. Drones are primarily used by the military. They are military equipment. If they start getting used by local police forces left and right, well, they would no longer be military equipment. And that would be unfortunate.

tptacek 14y ago
"Drone" is just a colloquialism for "unmanned aircraft". "Tank" is a word that means "armored vehicle, likely fitted with heavy arms". So the problem with your comments here are simple as far as I can tell: There is a nationwide problem of police forces using tanks as part of SWAT operations, and of manufacturers of what are effectively tanks starting to tailor products to police forces. This militarization of our police forces is a real problem and worth talking about. But wow do you ever muddy the waters when you suggest that a straightforward technological advance --- small, remote-controlled unmanned aircraft --- must clearly be "military" because its first widely-known use was by the military. There are already civilian drones. Drones were used during Fukushima to monitor radiation above the burning reactors. Energy companies apparently use them to monitor marine mammals in offshore drilling. You are on extraordinarily shaky ground when you attempt to paint "law enforcement UAVs" with the "hellfire missile" brush. I think you should let this point go.
- Retric 14y ago
  SWAT (special weapons and tactics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT is specifically a group of police officers trained to use military weapons and tactics. They do use APC's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_personnel_carrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_personnel_carrier) but don't use 'tanks' because they don't fight people in armored vehicles. PS: What separates tanks from APC's tank's are designed to be artillery pieces (aka Cannon) which can move while protecting their gun crew. Where an APC's goal is to transport infantry. It may have some built in armaments but it's more effective for people to get out when the fighting starts. This compares to a howitzer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRF1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRF1 which is designed to be far enough from enemy lines that while it may be mobile it does not need to protect it's crew.

by maratd 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

"Drone" is just a colloquialism for "unmanned aircraft". "Tank" is a word that means "armored vehicle, likely fitted with heavy arms". So the problem with your comments here are simple as far as I can tell: There is a nationwide problem of police forces using tanks as part of SWAT operations, and of manufacturers of what are effectively tanks starting to tailor products to police forces. This militarization of our police forces is a real problem and worth talking about. But wow do you ever muddy the waters when you suggest that a straightforward technological advance --- small, remote-controlled unmanned aircraft --- must clearly be "military" because its first widely-known use was by the military. There are already civilian drones. Drones were used during Fukushima to monitor radiation above the burning reactors. Energy companies apparently use them to monitor marine mammals in offshore drilling. You are on extraordinarily shaky ground when you attempt to paint "law enforcement UAVs" with the "hellfire missile" brush. I think you should let this point go.

Retric 14y ago
SWAT (special weapons and tactics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT is specifically a group of police officers trained to use military weapons and tactics. They do use APC's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_personnel_carrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_personnel_carrier) but don't use 'tanks' because they don't fight people in armored vehicles. PS: What separates tanks from APC's tank's are designed to be artillery pieces (aka Cannon) which can move while protecting their gun crew. Where an APC's goal is to transport infantry. It may have some built in armaments but it's more effective for people to get out when the fighting starts. This compares to a howitzer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRF1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRF1 which is designed to be far enough from enemy lines that while it may be mobile it does not need to protect it's crew.