Headline News

[diachi]

An interesting thought just came to me. Could you disable a tank with the stuff you can find in a big box store?

Probably not a modern tank ... those can take a real good beating.

From Wikipedia:

In one encounter within an urban area, a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and, while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by 14 rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[20] The crew survived, remaining safe within the tank until it was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later, after repairs had been done.

Edit: probably on a list now ... if I wasn't already.

Edit 2: Also from Wikipedia:

One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.

Although I imagine it wouldn't have been going anywhere after that.

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

So, that's an unequivocal yes, to disabling... but not destroying.

Seems like a variation on a paintball gun, or some paint filled balloons would be somewhat effective, if combined with other factors to blind the tank.

 

[planters]

So, that's an unequivocal yes, to disabling... but not destroying.

I agree. Just like the feds want a remote shut down for newer cars. The tank is very strong, but it is useless if it is completely blind to visible, IR and GHz radio. They also have huge cooling requirements that would suffer from FG and foam.

I don't expect any tanks up my road soon, but it's good to know that no matter who looks to threaten our freedoms they will have an up hill battle against intelligence. That is the most effective weapon in existence.

 

[Pi R Squared]

This is brilliant, I hope we never need to become insurgents, but if we do it's nice to know there are possibilities.

Alan

 

[Pi R Squared]

Treasury Decides To Put Harriet Tubman On $20 Bill : The Two-Way : NPR

Hamilton to stay on front of $10, sources say, and Harriet Tubman gets the $20 - Apr. 20, 2016

:wtf: I have no objection to having a black person on our currency, it's long overdue, but this woman should be on a new $1 coin. Anyone on our paper currency should at least be well known, if it's a black person they should be a name everyone knows, as long as it's not Barak Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Opera Winfrey. I would think Martin Luther King Jr. would be the best choice.

They are also going to change the $10 bill with women on the back.

Alan

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

I would think Martin Luther King Jr. would be the best choice.

Yup, that seems like the obvious choice to me too, but my guess is they wanted a woman specifically.

Edit: I will say this, I'm happy to see Andrew Jackson taken off. Where native americans are concerned he was no better than Hitler was with jews.

 

[Rokakku]

"A laser beam over a river sets off a loud siren when someone passes through it, the Press Trust of India reported this week." That's cool. Glad they didn't decide to go full resident evil.

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

There are actually a ton of systems developed for all kinds for border security. One of the most common options are ground tremor sensors. Anything larger passes by in the vicinity, an alarm goes off. At this point there are also variations advanced enough that can differentiate between a deer, a bear, a bike, car, human, etc,. Problem is they are expensive to setup, expensive to maintain, expensive to replace, and still require a human element to respond to alerts.

Which means a full on resident evil laser grid would actually be a more efficient alternative. Warning signs would be a must though.

 

[Razako]

Canada plans marijuana legalization by spring 2017: Minister | MSNBC
Good to see our neighbor to the North is progressive on this issue at least. Our government still cannot decide if it should be in the same category as heroin or not.

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

Good! US is the country that's blocking progressive reform to drug abuse, more so than any other.

The only people that support drug prohibition are law enforcement, derive revenue from enforcement in some form, and the cartels themselves. (I consider big pharma to be in the same category as the cartels.)

Would make a hell of a lot more sense, for the greater good, to legalize and regulate all drugs, to treat the issues as medical rather than legal.