Drones are perfect for asymmetrical warfare. They wait somewhere until a surveillance drone detects somebody who leaves their allowed area. Then they fly there and kill them.
It’s only important to protect urban centers.
Insurgents can camp in the woods as long as they want. An insurgency won’t disrupt normal operations once enough drones are available.
I’ll chime in. So look at how US did drone strikes against an insurgent militia last decade. Yeah. it worked in that it killed somebody. but would you say that was successful in ending that conflict? now imagine a country doing that on its own citizens. sure, if the bar for success is killing someone: kudos. but does that actually work? in real life. against insurgents hiding with civilians.
why mythologize a hypothetical violence when it already is proven to have failed in real life?
I was thinking more of Ukraine style frontline drones that take out individual soldiers.
Insurgents will be 2-3% of the population. That’s like targeting the black prison population or the people who oppose vaccines. With the right framing people will look away like they do with black prisoners.
Insurgents can hide, but they cannot communicate or move. That war will not be like Afghanistan.
And if shops keep track of who buys what it becomes difficult to feed hiding insurgents.
so that kind of drone use doesn’t really make sense in a civil setting? it works in Ukraine because they’re on a budget and it’s simple in contrast to a war machine. drones really just sound scary because they conjure up years of scifi mythbuilding but I’m sure you’ve seen that Ukrainian drones are running on cable spools that now blanket the land, suicide bombing a 3 million ruble tanks, and cost pocket lint to make. it’s all well and good but that’s not really any of the goals in suppressing a domestic threat. if anything, those are the kind of qualities insurgents world try to pursue.
why not look at an example of anticivilian warfare that’s actually being used in America by the gov right now? it would probably give you a clearer idea of what 2a leftists are actually prepping for
What do you mean? The deployed soldiers? That would end like Afghanistan. People would cover, wild shootouts would occur.
If you take drones, no cables are needed because any distortion device can be taken out directly since there is no frontline that limits movements. Then the drone can fly to the target and kill it.
I meant ICE. Or. or the STS in Hong Kong. if you want a more classical example, think the Gestappo. And yes, these risk shootouts. Hence why you should care about being armed during one.
you haven’t seen the fibre cables that drives use? you should learn a little more about them. it’s still interesting but it’s not the weapon you think it is.
do you live in america? your comment seems very odd considering how america actually is,
in conjunction, the way insurgencies work with asymmetrical warfare. targeted strikes are not effective.
No, please correct me.
Drones are perfect for asymmetrical warfare. They wait somewhere until a surveillance drone detects somebody who leaves their allowed area. Then they fly there and kill them.
It’s only important to protect urban centers. Insurgents can camp in the woods as long as they want. An insurgency won’t disrupt normal operations once enough drones are available.
I’ll chime in. So look at how US did drone strikes against an insurgent militia last decade. Yeah. it worked in that it killed somebody. but would you say that was successful in ending that conflict? now imagine a country doing that on its own citizens. sure, if the bar for success is killing someone: kudos. but does that actually work? in real life. against insurgents hiding with civilians.
why mythologize a hypothetical violence when it already is proven to have failed in real life?
I was thinking more of Ukraine style frontline drones that take out individual soldiers.
Insurgents will be 2-3% of the population. That’s like targeting the black prison population or the people who oppose vaccines. With the right framing people will look away like they do with black prisoners.
Insurgents can hide, but they cannot communicate or move. That war will not be like Afghanistan.
And if shops keep track of who buys what it becomes difficult to feed hiding insurgents.
so that kind of drone use doesn’t really make sense in a civil setting? it works in Ukraine because they’re on a budget and it’s simple in contrast to a war machine. drones really just sound scary because they conjure up years of scifi mythbuilding but I’m sure you’ve seen that Ukrainian drones are running on cable spools that now blanket the land, suicide bombing a 3 million ruble tanks, and cost pocket lint to make. it’s all well and good but that’s not really any of the goals in suppressing a domestic threat. if anything, those are the kind of qualities insurgents world try to pursue.
why not look at an example of anticivilian warfare that’s actually being used in America by the gov right now? it would probably give you a clearer idea of what 2a leftists are actually prepping for
What do you mean? The deployed soldiers? That would end like Afghanistan. People would cover, wild shootouts would occur.
If you take drones, no cables are needed because any distortion device can be taken out directly since there is no frontline that limits movements. Then the drone can fly to the target and kill it.
I meant ICE. Or. or the STS in Hong Kong. if you want a more classical example, think the Gestappo. And yes, these risk shootouts. Hence why you should care about being armed during one.
you haven’t seen the fibre cables that drives use? you should learn a little more about them. it’s still interesting but it’s not the weapon you think it is.