5 ms·

And then what? You'd have to have a commando team in these tribal areas close enough to catch the incapacitated victims before they can stand up again.

stcredzero 13y ago
I was thinking in the context of domestic use along the border or for use with drug interdiction. Also, I can think of uses for temporarily incapacitating people. The US government sends in an airstrike along a corridor covered by airbases. However, when the opposing air forces try to scramble their jets, their pilots are incapacitated and harassed by quadcopter drones deployed from a container dropped earlier by a stealthed drone. I think there would be a lot of uses for such capability for special forces units.
- nether 13y ago
  Or you actually blow up their jets during the airstrike, so that they can't use them ever. Seriously, "harass" the pilots? A gentler, more playful war I suppose.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    You wouldn't feel playful about being harassed by Tasers. But yes, this is bending over backwards to avoid killing people. It would be easier to just bomb them.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  A cluster bomb delivered in that same container would be cheaper, more effective and with less risk to fail. In military applications, it is almost always easier to permanently incapacitate people. Tech for temporary incapacitation is needed only in those very rare cases where we really, really need someone alive; where the capture is so vital that it's worth risking and often spending our troop lives to achieve that.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    > A cluster bomb delivered in that same container would be cheaper, more effective and with less risk to fail. Yes. This scheme is bending over backwards to try not to kill people. Just killing them would be much simpler.
- 6d0debc071 13y ago
  It'd be more reliable just to blow the pilots aircraft up before they got off the ground. (Or the runway for that matter.) You can disable a fighter with a couple of bullets from a handgun easily enough, they're fragile in that way.

stcredzero 13y ago

I was thinking in the context of domestic use along the border or for use with drug interdiction. Also, I can think of uses for temporarily incapacitating people. The US government sends in an airstrike along a corridor covered by airbases. However, when the opposing air forces try to scramble their jets, their pilots are incapacitated and harassed by quadcopter drones deployed from a container dropped earlier by a stealthed drone. I think there would be a lot of uses for such capability for special forces units.

nether 13y ago
Or you actually blow up their jets during the airstrike, so that they can't use them ever. Seriously, "harass" the pilots? A gentler, more playful war I suppose.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  You wouldn't feel playful about being harassed by Tasers. But yes, this is bending over backwards to avoid killing people. It would be easier to just bomb them.
PeterisP 13y ago
A cluster bomb delivered in that same container would be cheaper, more effective and with less risk to fail. In military applications, it is almost always easier to permanently incapacitate people. Tech for temporary incapacitation is needed only in those very rare cases where we really, really need someone alive; where the capture is so vital that it's worth risking and often spending our troop lives to achieve that.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  > A cluster bomb delivered in that same container would be cheaper, more effective and with less risk to fail. Yes. This scheme is bending over backwards to try not to kill people. Just killing them would be much simpler.
6d0debc071 13y ago
It'd be more reliable just to blow the pilots aircraft up before they got off the ground. (Or the runway for that matter.) You can disable a fighter with a couple of bullets from a handgun easily enough, they're fragile in that way.