3 ms·
> without requiring fire-arms training. You'd need trebuchet training instead, which is probably not better in the long run. I bet there's still lots of ways t
by andrewflnr 2mo ago
> without requiring fire-arms training.
You'd need trebuchet training instead, which is probably not better in the long run. I bet there's still lots of ways to kill/mangle yourself with one of these, especially once you've been around them long enough to get casual and sloppy.
- MomsAVoxell 2mo agoAll such weaponized technology carries the weight of danger, but de-weaponized technologies - which is what this represents to me - could mean some break-throughs, too. There are a lot of peaceful applications for a trebuchet. And yes, it'd need training, but its not the training part of explosives training that I think needs to be rendered obsolete, but rather the explosives manufacture and distribution network, or in other words: peaceful applications for a trebuchet.
- andrewflnr 2mo agoPeaceful use of weapons is cool. But that's exactly what avalanche-triggering guns already are, in full. They and trebuchets are both military artillery at heart. As far as I know they still need explosives at the terminal end, too, even when dropped by helicopter, so that part is also not going away (ignoring explosives needed for mining, etc).