131–140 of 158 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think bigger: a drone at 2000 ft having to deal with the cross-wind from different altitudes.
Drones don't use 50cal machine guns. What they use is missiles and bombs, and they've been guided for decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That may explain how the target corrects its trajectory towards the actual target, but how does the bullet determine what the "actual target" is in the first place? I would imagine this would be simple in test cases, but in the real world, what about a hostile target may differentiate it from a friendly ally that is nearby?
I commented below that it's marked by laser, but the counterargument was that if you can aim a laser you can aim a rifle. Let me rephrase: the goal of this system is to correct for deviations from the actual target which occur in the air. Because of wind, temperature, rotation of the earth (when taking really long shots) and other factors a marksman might have to adjust his or her aim and actually aim off-target to g…
Some things never change...
spotter: acquire the target.
sniper: rodger. target acquired.
spotter: laser paint the target.
sniper: what color?
spotter: we should paint it blue according to IEEE 802.11eeek
sniper: But we're on the *RED* team! Not the blue team! dummy!
spotter: Don't call me a dummy. I read the IEEE spec. Did you?
sniper: We should paint it RED! according to IETF RFC-31337
spotter: No! No! No! 802.11eek clearly says blue!
sniper: I'M CERTAIIN IT SHOULD BE RED!!!111``
spotter: calm down or you'll miss (again, haha) and just use blue.
sniper: you started it with the "No!No!No!" crap. I want red.
spotter: you're too frustrated to type "certain" correctly. blue.
sniper: but I really wanted red, impending doom an all that.
spotter: with blue you'll get purple if you hit the damn target!
sniper: Oops! too late. target lost. he hid behind that bikeshed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That may explain how the target corrects its trajectory towards the actual target, but how does the bullet determine what the "actual target" is in the first place? I would imagine this would be simple in test cases, but in the real world, what about a hostile target may differentiate it from a friendly ally that is nearby?
I commented below that it's marked by laser, but the counterargument was that if you can aim a laser you can aim a rifle. Let me rephrase: the goal of this system is to correct for deviations from the actual target which occur in the air. Because of wind, temperature, rotation of the earth (when taking really long shots) and other factors a marksman might have to adjust his or her aim and actually aim off-target to g…
All sorts of known strategies applicable to e.g Hellfires come to mind (sorry for the dubious reference and descriptions, I recently unearthed old Comanche 3 and Longbow games): shoot timed salvos and light up targets in sequence, shoot blind and hidden then pop up and light up at the last second...
I wonder what each bullet will cost once production starts? I sometimes think about the origins of the second amendment and if it's intent was to empower citizens against a potentially oppressive government then it has failed. US military technology might as well be black magic. What can a "well regulated militia" do against smart bullets, M1 Abrams, Apache helicopters, etc? Thank goodness we are kept fat and happy.
The basis of American freedom isn't some libertarians with rifles. Its the fact that the U.S. military consists of poorly-paid kids who care more about family and community than they do about abstract ideas. That and the fact that the military and its arsenal is physicislly distributed over numerous states. More powerful military technology makes us more free, not less. It just means it takes fewer people to break ra…
I wonder what each bullet will cost once production starts? I sometimes think about the origins of the second amendment and if it's intent was to empower citizens against a potentially oppressive government then it has failed. US military technology might as well be black magic. What can a "well regulated militia" do against smart bullets, M1 Abrams, Apache helicopters, etc? Thank goodness we are kept fat and happy.
>What can a "well regulated militia" do against smart bullets, M1 Abrams, Apache helicopters, etc? First of all, have you seen how much of a fight low tech militias have put up against the U.S. lately? Secondly, don't forget that the people trained to use that technology are U.S. citizens too and will fight for their family before they fight for their county (most of them anyway).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Drones don't use 50cal machine guns. What they use is missiles and bombs, and they've been guided for decades.
Just guessing, but maybe future drone models (esp. low altitude ones) will use machine guns?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What can a "well regulated militia" do against smart bullets, M1 Abrams, Apache helicopters, etc? First of all, have you seen how much of a fight low tech militias have put up against the U.S. lately? Secondly, don't forget that the people trained to use that technology are U.S. citizens too and will fight for their family before they fight for their county (most of them anyway).
There's no government that would turn the US military against the US population. It just wouldn't happen. What is happening though is the militarisation of the police, and making it more and more 'normal' for the population to accept it. The idea of a national army being turned against it's own people is hopelessly outdated in the modern, western world. There are more efficient and more subtle ways to control the pop…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That describes zero of the people I've met who serve in the armed forces.
There are always articles popping up about people being so poor that the only way to escape was to join the military, or recruiters bribing people with college degrees.
Members of the all-volunteer military are significantly more likely to come from high-income neighborhoods than from low-income neighborhoods. Only 11 percent of enlisted recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth (quintile) of neighborhoods, while 25 percent came from the wealthiest quintile. These trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, in which 40 percent of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods-a number that has increased substantially over the past four years.
-- Who Serves in the U.S. Military? The Demographics of Enlisted Troops and Officers
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That also relates to the why the police is generally enforcing whatever a government wants, while the military always sides with the people when things go really wrong.
Counter examples. Civil war, Japanese internment, numerous actions against native Americans although you may not consider them protected by bill of rights.
Civil war was a civil war, with the country split into two sides. Regional bonds took precedence over national ones but the military of each faction sided with the people of their region. Japanese internment and native Americans involved minorities. The soldiers didn't come from those communities, and native americans were barely considered people much less Americans. It doesn't take much to get the majority to take action against a minority, but that's not an existential threat to democracy.