armament

> What exactly is a non-evil way to use a microdrone with lethal armament? Pest control?

If anything, the US should be bargaining with Iran to get a quid pro quo in return for acceptance of nuclear armament.

This "War on Immigration" crap is motivated by armament and prison suppliers.

Even here on Hacker News recently, there was an article about how the entire US nuclear armament is run through ancient computers and we chuckle." Ha ha, you gov't people are stuck in the stone ages".

Typically armament includes studded tires and with a "cabin" it would greatly cut down on the chill from the wind. If anything, I think it would make cycling in colder weather more accessible to more people.

It's been a long, long time since you could buy an F-16 for $5M. Also, the F-35 is more maneuverable than the current F-16s which have to hang a ton of armament on pylons, as well as drop tanks to get range equivalent to the F-35. And try flying any F-16 into S300 range.

As it turns out missiles weren't the best idea for the only armament on an aircraft. Drones may end up in the same category and we still want manned fighters, we might not yet want to go whole hog into as yet unproven territory.

We won't have wars if there weren't armament industry, we wouldn't have alcoholics if we didn't have brewery, we wouldn't have crappy music if we didn't have Robin Thicke. Humanity is better than what we see around us!

You already have the National Guard out in Missouri, and they have Blackhawk helicopters which have chain guns as their standard armament. The idea that in the US civil militias could really hold their own against the state is an absurd fiction.

And a battleship, carrying a stupidly large armament, has the advantage of being able to blow up lots of your opponent's stuff. Its primary disadvantage is its expense, which is why you don't see fleets consisting of only battleships.

That level of armament is a sign of something dreadfully wrong with American society, and certainly not helpful towards fixing it.

Example: There are a lot of weapons I cannot legally acquire, for example: I can't buy an M249 machine gun, most automatic M-16s, a functioning fighter jet with all its armament, or a nuclear warhead. In your view, is this acceptable, or is it a clear violation of the 2nd amendment?

Self-esteem culture is like nuclear armament. Everybody complains about it but nobody wants to do anything about it individually; why would you want to be the one to break the little kids' hearts by denying 'em a medal even though they tried really hard and just happen to suck.

Also, our policy is to have a massive nuclear armament which can be used at any time to destroy any country or even the population of the entire planet. I don't think we need to be directing any more of our media studies graduates into the engineering just to help out our armed forces.

However, when it is done, there is usually a fair bit of armament around the cash, and the kinds of people that keep that sort of cash on hand are also not the sort you want to commit an amateur robbery against.

Hunting isn't really a good justification for the proliferation of AR-platform rifles, and is definitely a non-sequitur when discussing the armament of our police force.

Now we reach the crux of the matter; the question is not that of whether one man may more easily kill another with a rifle than with an axe, but rather that of whether one man may more easily kill a number of other men given the same difference in armament. At this point, it becomes useful to consider once again your assumption that the purpose of the exercise is "[the] avoidance of violence".

I would be more interested in seeing a thought out analysis by the OP, that takes into account the complex geopolitical landscape of the last 100 years, including armament of these so called terrorists by the US, drone strikes that kill Afghan and Pakistani children, etc.

I'd expect an equilibrium to eventually emerge where warring parties employ mercs of matched number, armament and skill, and no one can gain an upper hand. That's what tends to happen in EVE anyway -- the starmap reaches an equilibrium of victors and losers, and borders are quiet for some time until a large disruptive event occurs, upon which alliances go to war, conquer or collapse, and the starmap changes and resettles again.

Even if the USA should cease developments of its drone program and start decommissioning the crafts, that in itself would not stop drone armament, since several other actors would in all probability continue developments on programs that are now already in full action'