TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.cnet.com/news/pepper-spray-a ... st-orders/

The company describes the Skunk as a "riot control copter." A single operator can fly several Skunk drones flying in formation. Each Skunk boasts eight electric motors with 16-inch propellors, lifting 45kg and carrying 4,000 pepper spray paintballs, plastic balls or other "non-lethal" ammunition.

It's armed with four high-pressure paintball guns capable of firing at up to 20 bullets per second each, meaning up to 80 rounds can blanket a crowd every second.

The drone also includes on-board speakers to warn crowds, as well as bright strobe lights and "blinding lasers" to disorientate victims. Blinding lasers are prohibited for use in war under the auspices of the Geneva Convention.

I've often wondered (and I fully realize that I am woefully uneducated about these sorts of things) why, if something is banned in war, why it would be acceptable used upon a civilian population?

That is an excellent question.

Skit shooting is looking more like a skill for drones then ducks.

Seburiel wrote:I've often wondered (and I fully realize that I am woefully uneducated about these sorts of things) why, if something is banned in war, why it would be acceptable used upon a civilian population?

The same question might be asked with respect to the use of expanding bullets, which are commonly used by police, and are even by some jurisdictions required to be used under certain circumstance, such as when hunting.

It is not clear that the use of "blinding lasers," the term used in the above-referenced CNET article, is prohibited in warfare, as it is not clear from the article that the described lasers are intended to cause permanent blindness. Indeed, the article itself says that their purpose is to "disorientate victims...." Nit-picking? Possibly, but that is the nature of things, particularly when technology overtakes otherwise well-meaning rules.

For example, it is generally known that the U. S. military has tested, and may still be testing, laser weapons which can kill an enemy. This can be justified under the law of war because while it may be illegal to intentionally permanently blind an enemy with a laser it is not illegal to kill him with one. Sort that one out for us.

Jim

Really, what sense does it make that something like hollow point bullets are banned but you can drop a 1,000 lb bomb on someone, or burn them to death with a flame thrower?

VMI77 wrote:Really, what sense does it make that something like hollow point bullets are banned but you can drop a 1,000 lb bomb on someone, or burn them to death with a flame thrower?

Don't forget land mines.

There's some spin here.

The lasers that are called out by Geneva are lasers that are designed to cause "permanent blindness".

REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_o ... er_Weapons" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's implied that this is what the drone carries, but that's very unlikely. Spin.
It's much more likely that the drone carriers "dazzlers" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzler_%28weapon%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - which are temporary, non-lethal and wouldn't be impacted by Geneva.

Any laser that you shine into an eye is going to cause immediate "blindness" - which is why if you point one at an aircraft, it's a pretty serious problem.

I do see an increased militarization by local law enforcement agencies and other agencies that might be involved in domestic policing. Any time you need an armored vehicle in your local PD, something is terribly amiss..

As a PS-PS: I just built a "drone". Not GPS enabled.. Takes a little more skill that way to fly it around. For a few hundred dollars more, I can program where it should go, what altitude it should be at, equip it with a camera and have it return to home. You can buy one ready to go for about $700.
Scary stuff.

VMI77 wrote:Really, what sense does it make that something like hollow point bullets are banned but you can drop a 1,000 lb bomb on someone, or burn them to death with a flame thrower?

very simply, a FMJ or ball round penetrates all the way through imparting less kinetic energy to the target smaller wound cavity and therefore better chance of survival, the object according to the Geneva convention and the rules of war is to remove your enemy from the combat scenario not to kill him/her, to purposely kill an enemy is tantamount to murder to incapacitate/ maim or otherwise remove the enemy soldier from the battlefield is not. however the world court thru the rules of war and the Geneva convention do recognize that people die in war and unintentional death is not a crime, that is why we do not use hollow point rounds in war and 50 cal is NOT allowed to be used against personnel that are in the open and un protected by hardened structure(cough cough yea right) Also one other thing, and this didn't exist during the creation of the afore mentioned laws of war, expanding projectiles will not penetrate a ballistic vest however ball rounds will as close to 4000 fps so we still use ball rounds, but other gubbermints do not, they use all kinds of illegal stuff. Bombs are not designed to kill precisely but rather to injure the largest number of enemy combatants possible within the confines of the blast radius unaffected by material considerations(buildings/Bunkers)

yes its stooped and driven by the loosers (SIC) in several conflicts

Not to be pedantic, but "dum dum" or expanding rounds are what are banned by the Hague Convention of 1899. More interestingly, the United States never ratified that declaration.

JP171 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Really, what sense does it make that something like hollow point bullets are banned but you can drop a 1,000 lb bomb on someone, or burn them to death with a flame thrower?

very simply, a FMJ or ball round penetrates all the way through imparting less kinetic energy to the target smaller wound cavity and therefore better chance of survival, the object according to the Geneva convention and the rules of war is to remove your enemy from the combat scenario not to kill him/her, to purposely kill an enemy is tantamount to murder to incapacitate/ maim or otherwise remove the enemy soldier from the battlefield is not.

Side note: hurting an enemy is better than killing them in war (in theory). A dead enemy can be dealt with later, but a hurt enemy needs to be tended to, and that distracts valuable people (among the enemy's ranks) that could have been fighting. Or so we were taught that when I was in...back when Russia was an enemy, rather then the close personal friends we are now.

JP171 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Really, what sense does it make that something like hollow point bullets are banned but you can drop a 1,000 lb bomb on someone, or burn them to death with a flame thrower?

very simply, a FMJ or ball round penetrates all the way through imparting less kinetic energy to the target smaller wound cavity and therefore better chance of survival, the object according to the Geneva convention and the rules of war is to remove your enemy from the combat scenario not to kill him/her, to purposely kill an enemy is tantamount to murder to incapacitate/ maim or otherwise remove the enemy soldier from the battlefield is not. however the world court thru the rules of war and the Geneva convention do recognize that people die in war and unintentional death is not a crime, that is why we do not use hollow point rounds in war and 50 cal is NOT allowed to be used against personnel that are in the open and un protected by hardened structure(cough cough yea right) Also one other thing, and this didn't exist during the creation of the afore mentioned laws of war, expanding projectiles will not penetrate a ballistic vest however ball rounds will as close to 4000 fps so we still use ball rounds, but other gubbermints do not, they use all kinds of illegal stuff. Bombs are not designed to kill precisely but rather to injure the largest number of enemy combatants possible within the confines of the blast radius unaffected by material considerations(buildings/Bunkers)

yes its stooped and driven by the loosers (SIC) in several conflicts

The standard 7.62x51mm sniper cartridge pushes a 175 grain boat tail HOLLOW POINT. And, the 5.56x45mm cartridge preferred for DMR rifles is a 77 grain boat tail HOLLOW POINT. They get around this by calling it "open-tipped match ammo"........a fine example of splitting hairs if there ever was one. But that said, the Sierra Matchking behaves very much like an FMJ when it hits the target: it deforms a bit, then it yaws and turns around, traveling base-first until it exits. In other words, it really doesn't have any different wounding potential than FMJ ammo.....the only difference being that it has a more stable trajectory, and it won't penetrate armor as easily.

JP171 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Really, what sense does it make that something like hollow point bullets are banned but you can drop a 1,000 lb bomb on someone, or burn them to death with a flame thrower?

very simply, a FMJ or ball round penetrates all the way through imparting less kinetic energy to the target smaller wound cavity and therefore better chance of survival, the object according to the Geneva convention and the rules of war is to remove your enemy from the combat scenario not to kill him/her, to purposely kill an enemy is tantamount to murder to incapacitate/ maim or otherwise remove the enemy soldier from the battlefield is not. however the world court thru the rules of war and the Geneva convention do recognize that people die in war and unintentional death is not a crime, that is why we do not use hollow point rounds in war and 50 cal is NOT allowed to be used against personnel that are in the open and un protected by hardened structure(cough cough yea right) Also one other thing, and this didn't exist during the creation of the afore mentioned laws of war, expanding projectiles will not penetrate a ballistic vest however ball rounds will as close to 4000 fps so we still use ball rounds, but other gubbermints do not, they use all kinds of illegal stuff. Bombs are not designed to kill precisely but rather to injure the largest number of enemy combatants possible within the confines of the blast radius unaffected by material considerations(buildings/Bunkers)

yes its stooped and driven by the loosers (SIC) in several conflicts

Are you saying that snipers aren't using .50 BMG against individuals who are in the open or concealed?

VMI77 wrote:

JP171 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Really, what sense does it make that something like hollow point bullets are banned but you can drop a 1,000 lb bomb on someone, or burn them to death with a flame thrower?

very simply, a FMJ or ball round penetrates all the way through imparting less kinetic energy to the target smaller wound cavity and therefore better chance of survival, the object according to the Geneva convention and the rules of war is to remove your enemy from the combat scenario not to kill him/her, to purposely kill an enemy is tantamount to murder to incapacitate/ maim or otherwise remove the enemy soldier from the battlefield is not. however the world court thru the rules of war and the Geneva convention do recognize that people die in war and unintentional death is not a crime, that is why we do not use hollow point rounds in war and 50 cal is NOT allowed to be used against personnel that are in the open and un protected by hardened structure(cough cough yea right) Also one other thing, and this didn't exist during the creation of the afore mentioned laws of war, expanding projectiles will not penetrate a ballistic vest however ball rounds will as close to 4000 fps so we still use ball rounds, but other gubbermints do not, they use all kinds of illegal stuff. Bombs are not designed to kill precisely but rather to injure the largest number of enemy combatants possible within the confines of the blast radius unaffected by material considerations(buildings/Bunkers)

yes its stooped and driven by the loosers (SIC) in several conflicts

Are you saying that snipers aren't using .50 BMG against individuals who are in the open or concealed?

Nope not at all, they do use them, but have to think like a soldier that has been told to not use them against soft targets, the enemy has a helmet that's armor, if said enemy is behind a wadi wall then they are under light armor'/building cover and may be engaged, yea its a bit like that LOL

The next super-secret project: Drones for GI detection, ID, Tagging (operator) and auto-engagement. Think of it as flying sniper.