Remember how I promised to drop the matter if UP did?
This fact is not altered just because she changed her mind afterwards and had the doc revive him.
Um, she didn't change her mind. She discovered that her actions as-is would lead to permadeath and left you in the care of
licensed medical professionals.
Auron never acknowledged Simus authority over him extending past the survey
So?
and this was never corrected by Steve.
Yes it was. Right before the electrocutions. (Or was it right after?)
even after the electrocution he only requested that Auron follow her orders, he never ordered it
That's politeness, in my view. The fact that he wanted it done should be enough, and in case it isn't the electrocution should have made his desires clear.
and he never stated that Auron was incorrect in assuming he was previously operating outside of Simus authority.
Of course not, he let the electrocution do the talking for him.
When was the last time you got shocked and hadn't done something wrong?
Auron can claim temporary insanity for the assault, Simus cant plead shit for murder.
Temporary insanity just means you get locked up in a mental ward instead of a jail cell, you know. And when everyone is more or less permanently insane, temporary insanity probably isn't a defense.
Besides, she can plead several things. Temporary insanity, for reasons as good as Auron's (unless he claims that the electrocution screwed with his sanity), for instance. She would also have her hypothetical sentence reduced due to her lack of desire to actually kill Auron (and really, what did she do to him?), and her damaged emotional state due to both Auron's attitude and his actions.
you say Jim wants to avoid complications later on but punishing auron for ignoring the authority of those he was never instructed to respect,
Yes he did. Belatedly, but he did.
zapzapzap
reflexively attacking someone who caused great pain to befall him
"Reflexively"? Good luck defending that in court. And Simus told Steve to decide whether to shock you or not; she wasn't the cause any more than the postman who informed FDR of Pearl Harbor was the cause of American involvement in WWII.
[quote
and accidentally causing minor damages
[/quote]
MINOR?!?
Now, stop getting things wrong just to try to drag this out.
To be fair, that's not his intent. His intent is to get his way, dragging this out is his method.
You are a UWM councilman, discussing how to deal with the worker rebellion on Hephaestus. Known assets include massive industrial capability and advanced defense systems, notably including laser batteries which will shoot down most incoming projectiles. They may also have seized some dangerous weapons from an HMRC craft which was scheduled to dock there around the time of the rebellion, but this theory is unsubstantiated. They have a year to prepare, as well, and they will likely use this time to make weapons, more defenses, and war machines.
What weapons and such would you advise bringing to quell this rebellion, with minimal loss of life or property?
Bioweapons, chemical weapons, EMP weapons.
If it was me leading the UWM Invasion forces though, I'd be feeling pretty bad to be a rebel. There's not going to be much left after I would hypothetically sort that situation out. Due to the massive production capability of the world, I'd start laying waste to every vital factory on it, starting with shipyards for starships and then hitting the facilities for stuff like armour, robotic units and the like. The only time there's be boots on the ground would be in the aftermath just to tally up deaths, and not likely then due to the use of drones and such.
No offense, but I don't think that solves the UWM's problems at all.
1. You're destroying their ability to make more war machines, not their war machines. They will be more or less as powerful as they were before the bombing runs.
2. Mission objectives clearly state that you not blow everything up.
3. Again, the laser batteries.
Chemical weapons. SO MANY.
Poison gases, diseases, take your pick. Kill off the little rebels with no casualties.
...except for the civilians. Not a bad choice, but not the best. Especially given the various defenses against chemical weapons and a lack of a good means to spread them, unless the chemicals can resist laser heats and massive diffusion.
(And diseases are bioweapons, not chemical.)
1.I meant weapons whose projectiles are affected by gravity. As in, they drop. It's minor, but it certainly has an effect at range. Also, recoil is primarily vertical, so automatic weapons are less effective against a wide target.
2.Uh, a horse just isn't faster than a helicopter. Of any form. And it isn't as reliably fast- a horse will slow down in heavy brush or rubble. As far as flying in bad winds, it's capable of accurately firing a weapon in near hurricane force winds. Why would we be fighting in a hurricane?
3.Honestly, I wouldn't put nearly as many guns on one. I'd probably just put a single laser on it, cutting if possible. That could easily be an electrolaser, considering that they're barely larger. Actually, I just got a wonderful idea. See bottom of post.
4.Umm, no. I'm saying that it's easy to damage it with lasers. You would have to armor it against those. It's not immune to gauss weapons, it's just hard to hit it with one, because it's a small target that's moving fast. If you did hit it with one, it would probably go down from a single shot. And I'm saying it's even harder to shoot it with rockets, because rockets are slow and it's still a small target. If you had homing missiles that could track it, those would easily take it out, but we have never seen any homing UWM weapons (Aside from LESHO rounds), and most homing weapons are thermal anyways.
5.Two is normal, because it's efficient. The 5% is accounting for both of them. How big is what?
6.That engine is dead. On a quadcopter, it can still fly, but it will be limited with what movements it can make. On a hexacopter, which is probably best, it won't be too affected by one engine loss, and it could handle losing two, or even three if they're spaced evenly around. Note that the engine is a cylinder the diameter of an apple and only an inch tall, and that's with archaic RL tech.
7.Yes, including the props. That's why I originally said it would have trouble being downsized enough to fit through doors- it would be bad if it has to follow squads closely through buildings, although it would excel as external support in urban environments.
I've been quoting numbers from the hobbyist assuming this thing is supposed to carry about a hundred pounds, split between armor, weapons, and power supply. It would weigh twenty pounds aside from that. He says a hexacopter with the listed statistics would end up being able to go at least 100 MPH, probably closer to 125, with a full load. He increased the size of it to 60" bladetip to bladetip though. The central thing would literally just be the size of the power supply and whatever weapons you have. If you increase the width of the blades, it would be more efficient, so it can carry more armor/weapons/whatever.
And he says he could easily build it with today's technology, EXCEPT for a power source. It would require a massive energy draw- not much compared to a laser, but a lot compared to what we can make in RL.
1. Ah. And at range, any smart weapons designer/user would have accounted for the drop, so hitting the profile would be as easy whether it's oriented vertically or horizontally. In fact, the quadcoptor would be easier to hit on a near-miss, because of the greater area of the...back...thingy. Can you tell I'm not an engineer of any kind?
2. I said mobile, not fast. There's a pretty big difference. And I'm a bit doubtful of an R3-level quadcoptor going much past equine speeds...or of such speeds being terribly useful in combat.
3. If it's not armed nearly as much as an R3...that's a major disadvantage for a combot.
4. Yes, lasers would be a problem, but so would other things. Which is my point.
5. How big is the rotor.
6. All things considered, the Q3 (the quadcoptor hypothetically replacing the R3) with one rotor damaged would lose its one advantage over the equine R3 (mobility). And those rotors would be big targets, and if I understand helicoptering they'll be pretty hard to armor.
7. External support? Perhaps, but again, it wouldn't be performing nearly the same function as an R3 so it's kinda silly to talk of designing the R3 to perform a completely different function. It's like designing a station wagon for big families and having someone suggest instead making a SmartCar.
8. Where is the control? If you can't fit the computer with rotor control/wind compensation/etc programs, foe-finding systems, targeting software, and so forth onboard, you're going to need a signal coming in...which is another weakness, given the methods available to cut off the signal or whatever.
Mind you, I'm not saying quadcoptors don't have a place, somewhere in our forces. They might, if you design one right! I'm just saying that making the R3 into a quadcoptor isn't the best idea.
Good idea:
Get scout eye. Get cutting laser. Fly scout eye around corner, video enemies. Shoot through walls.
Why has nobody done this?
I'm not sure, but the frailty of scout eyes is probably a major consideration.
Really, when I started this conversation, I had only intended to show that a quadcopter would be a better platform than a horse.
There is no such thing as a universally better anything, barring extreme examples. There is only "better for a given task".
medical capability
What's medifoam, anyways?
