5 ms·
Why would there be anything past the first "battle" - terrorist fill drones with dirty radioactive dust, launch from sea into US, slowly release payload. Game
by ck2 13y ago
Why would there be anything past the first "battle" - terrorist fill drones with dirty radioactive dust, launch from sea into US, slowly release payload.
Game over, half the population on the east or west coast becomes extremely ill or develop cancers, food and water sources permanently tainted.
Instead of making drones we should be making drone detection and capture systems.
- glenra 13y ago"radioactive dust" does not work that way. You should run some numbers and see if your movie-plot threat is plausible before proposing it as a risk. (hint: it's not)
- ck2 13y agoUS soldiers and others near battlefields overseas are constantly getting ill from dust from the (badly named) depleted uranium ordinance that the US uses (and white phosphorus weapons). That's what leads me to believe this is plausible.
- glenra 13y ago> US soldiers and others near battlefields overseas are constantly getting ill from dust from the (badly named) depleted uranium ordinance that the US uses (and white phosphorus weapons). No, they aren't. What's your source claiming this? Why do you say depleted uranium is "badly named"? And if you took some of this dust and spread it on "the east coast" or "the west coast", wouldn't that dilute the concentration by more than a factor of a million and turn an already speculative and unproven risk into a truly truly insignificant risk? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Studies_indicating_negligible_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Studies_indic...
- ck2 13y agoDid you purposely link to heritage or was that an accidental result of google? Because that is pretty much a showstopper as they are wild right-wing nuts. Okay now you are using wikipedia. Read the rest of the page and realize that only the US, UK and Israel say the DU is okay, the rest of the UN says not. I wonder who has DU ammunition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Chemical_toxicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Chemical_toxi...
- jamesaguilar 13y agoAustralia, too, and the IAEA. I think you are in too much of a hurry to make your point.
- nether 13y ago*ordnance It's a shame US tank designers also use DU tank armor to protect soldiers. They're actually killing them with the radiation!
- olefoo 13y agoAs a psychological weapon it's extremely effective; sure the actual dose of radiation would be less than you'd be exposed to flying cross-country. But the fear? That would be very effective. A terror weapon in multiple senses of the word.
- j_baker 13y agoYou seem to be missing my point. Should those drone detection and capture systems be controlled by humans or algorithms? Just because you remove the word "drone" doesn't make algorithmic warfare any less inevitable.
- johngalt 13y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html
- angersock 13y agoYou have stumbled across an idea older than nuclear weapons. Heinlen's "Solution Unsatisfactory" was written with a very similar solution in mind ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solution_Unsatisfactory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solution_Unsatisfactory ). That said, that is perhaps the silliest way of using drones if one meant business.