I've seen plans for hand-held and slightly larger EMP generators/guns based on magnetrons out of microwave ovens. Several had some sort of dish reflector at the output and so presumably put out a directed, aimable pulse. I would think that such a device should put paid to the electronics of any drone - even possibly the larger ones that are becoming popular with local law enforcement agencies.
Such a device would not make any sort of loud noise unlike a firearm. Additionally, it would be difficult to prove exactly what caused the drone to cease functioning. It would seem prudent for future insurgents to have such devices as FedGov and loyalist troops will undoubtedly deploy UAVs/UCAVs against the insurgents. Who knows? Even if a UCAV's electronics are shielded against EMP (although that would of necessity impose a significant weight penalty) it is possible that the pulse might well cause the warheads of the drone's weapons to detonate.
Portable EMP generators would also seem to be a useful way to "soften up" opfor troops by taking out their comm gear making it difficult to hollar for help when attacked.
Aside from lasers or EMP guns, I must say that the genius of the founders is evident in the debate over drones. If a drone is violating your privacy, or other rights, we certainly should be able to exercise our right to use anti-aircraft/drone artillery to take the damn things down!
The founders after all did not specify any limits to the size of firearms one has the right to own; either in cartridge size, or bore size, or whether or not said firearm had to be crew-served or recoilless (the recoilless Kriss Super-V subgun comes to mind)...
One only need remember to assume responsibility for one's actions: what goes up ALWAYS comes down! (An argument for using rubber anti-drone canister shot..)
I'm a bit reticent to use an EMP gun if it kills the computers of half the people in my neighborhood, and they all figure out who to sue. But depending on the situation, it may be a less intrusive option than using a ballistic remedy to an offending drone!
2 comments:
I've seen plans for hand-held and slightly larger EMP generators/guns based on magnetrons out of microwave ovens. Several had some sort of dish reflector at the output and so presumably put out a directed, aimable pulse. I would think that such a device should put paid to the electronics of any drone - even possibly the larger ones that are becoming popular with local law enforcement agencies.
Such a device would not make any sort of loud noise unlike a firearm. Additionally, it would be difficult to prove exactly what caused the drone to cease functioning. It would seem prudent for future insurgents to have such
devices as FedGov and loyalist troops will undoubtedly deploy UAVs/UCAVs against the insurgents. Who knows? Even if a UCAV's electronics are shielded against EMP (although that would of necessity impose a significant weight penalty) it is possible that the pulse might well cause the warheads of the drone's weapons to detonate.
Portable EMP generators would also seem to be a useful way to "soften up" opfor troops by taking out their comm gear making it difficult to hollar for help when attacked.
Aside from lasers or EMP guns, I must say that the genius of the founders is evident in the debate over drones. If a drone is violating your privacy, or other rights, we certainly should be able to exercise our right to use anti-aircraft/drone artillery to take the damn things down!
The founders after all did not specify any limits to the size of firearms one has the right to own; either in cartridge size, or bore size, or whether or not said firearm had to be crew-served or recoilless (the recoilless Kriss Super-V subgun comes to mind)...
One only need remember to assume responsibility for one's actions: what goes up ALWAYS comes down! (An argument for using rubber anti-drone canister shot..)
I'm a bit reticent to use an EMP gun if it kills the computers of half the people in my neighborhood, and they all figure out who to sue. But depending on the situation, it may be a less intrusive option than using a ballistic remedy to an offending drone!
Post a Comment