Oh, of that I had no doubt, but I notice that nobody has disagreed with my point: given that lethal force (or the threat thereof) is useful in maintaining quara

Oh, of that I had no doubt, but I notice that nobody has disagreed with my point: given that lethal force (or the threat thereof) is useful in maintaining quarantine (as suggested by my parent post), use of drones makes sense, because it avoids the contamination issues seen using humans. There's a lot to be said for proper containment protocols and education, but let's not kid ourselves--the populations in question are already willfully acting against such things, supposing (in many cases) a Western bugaboo. Regardless, the meta issue here is that a bunch of HNers downvoted something merely because they disagreed with it (which is annoying but hardly the first time it's happened to this account) but also failed to contribute meaningfully to the discussion (which is sad). A lot of fools decry "oh no HN is close-minded" while spouting rubbish, but sometimes the accusation is well-founded. In our present example, there is an interesting discussion to be had: could the use of drones for quarantine purposes present as the next step down that slippery slope? What sort of precedent might that set? Were it to be wrong, what exactly would make it so? But, no; instead the users blindly downvote away and click onwards, safely avoiding that heavy burden of exploratory thinking.