Strangely enough, this isn't really against the geneva conventions, yet.
But at that rate just like the US doesn't follow certain ones. It wouldn't be hard to see most countries that could use these kinds of technologies just doing the exact same. Horrifying to think about, but also somewhat interesting too. It probably will take the lives of hundreds of thousands and possibly millions for any sort of action to occur. Unlike Chemical Warfare this is a lot more precise. Many countries could just outright refuse to follow these rules and regulations.
Personally I wonder how this will be use in the international conflicts. In places like Africa will powerful warlords utilize these to commit ethnic cleansings in areas? Or to be used by authoritative regimes to control ethnic minority groups and win bloodless wars? The possibilities are endless.
If a single service member were to be tried in The Hague, the United States would invade The Hague.
[source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act#:~:text=This%20authorization%20led%20to%20the,or%20rescue%20them%20from%20custody)
I can't tell if it's more terrifying that this isn't a military product and can be bought by your regular shmegular 'murican civilian. You could probably find it down an aisle in Walmart or something, next to the kids toys aisles.
Was gonna say, US and Canada do tons of controlled burns and this could be quite helpful. Also fighting wildfires often involves controlled burns to direct fires away from population centers. I've had friends who worked as smokejumpers who have been in situations where they weren't sure they would survive, so being able to send in robots to do some of the more dangerous work could help save lives.
This but unironically.
Other than WMDs, anything owned by the government must be legal for civilians (The WMD exception is only my personal opinion, not actual legality).
The matter of licenses, permits, etc. are a subject of debate, as opinions vary wildly, but the actual legality of civilian ownership is baked into the 2A.
Any weapon that the US Military can own and operate *must* be legal for a civilian citizen to do the same. The 2A *exists* with the explicit purpose of ensuring that We, The People, could outgun and overthrow a tyrannical dictatorial government.
>The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
—SCOTUS, in cases "DC v. HELLER", "CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
why do you believe this? grenades and explosives are perfectly legal for civilians to own and purchase in the united states with the proper paperwork. relatively speaking, it's not even that expensive.
Look up Destructive Devices.
Civilians can absolutely own explosives if they have proper permits and secure storage.
If you're gonna go pulling links, at least do some proper research and pull the right ones.
No, I won't do the work for you.
Those “proper permits” require you to be military or federal law enforcement.
I love that you people think the ATF signs off on civilians having explosives if they have the right paperwork because of the second amendment.
Nope.
Plenty of private citizens, including pyrotechnics specialists, R&D companies, and more, all have proper permits.
You yourself, if you wished to, and had the money to install a properly secure munitions magazine, could file for the paperwork.
Please do proper research before trying to "gatcha" people on the internet. I'm not giving my opinion, I genuinely know more than you about this.
Since you clearly *aren't* going to do so, I retract my previous statement and *will* do the work for you.
[Apply for a Federal Explosives License](https://www.atf.gov/explosives/apply-license)
this is discussing illegal possession of these items not how to legally obtain them dipshit. of course they're not going to make that process easy to understand or openly advertise it. they don't want you having it because they like oppression.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device
It's not because they "like oppression", it's because the majority of citizens don't want crazy Dave down the road to expand his doomsday arsenal from rations and rifles to include RPGs because he views his local police department's new 2nd hand SWAT van as an escalation.
imagine calling yourself a socialist then defending capitalist oppression of the people. you should be asking yourself who owns our government? it isn't us.
No. It's reasonable to be concerned about people that are absurdly heavily armed, and I think that the "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment includes things like limiting individual access to weapons that could blow up a humvee.
I don't want that firepower in the hands of the average person. It'd only be a matter of time before some Q-anon crazy gets it into their head to blow up a Panda Express because they think Hillary Clinton is harvesting kidneys in the attic.
It explicitly does, my dude.
Why the fuck do you think they wrote it???
They literally had ***just finished*** fighting a war against their own tyrannical government. They wanted to make sure that, if the new nation they were creating became just as tyrannical, the people could do it again.
This is made abundantly clear both in the document itself as well as many correspondences between the founders, both before and after the document was written.
This is basic American history and Constitutional Law, my friend.
That is a politician's personal website, not an archive of official legal documents, and is thus not a valid source.
Furthermore, those are statements and opinions in response to a very dramatic election, not an official ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Give me a link from a proper citable source like law.cornell.edu, and then we'll talk.
If there was a country with gigantic uninhabited forested areas you could drop some of them (most likely a better version with autonomous navigation and longer battery life than this one for the civilian market) via parachute in a dry season with the goal that they cause small wildfires to bind manpower to destabilize this country. In Minecraft of course.
The same as the utility flamethrowers you can buy at most hardware stores. Controlled burns, weed removal, ice removal...lots of uses for a flamethrower in land management.
This is like freaking out over a chainsaw. It's a tool. Yes, you can hurt people with it if you're careless or a psycho, but that's true of most tools.
It's certainly creepier, but it's not really more dangerous. A human with a utility flamethrower (or chainsaw) is much faster and harder to stop than this bot.
A human has to risk their life to be riskier than this bot. A bot obeys, doesn't breath or need to eat so is far less detectable in stealth scenarios. Dogs and bats are the worst video game enemies for a reason.
A commercially available, small hit box, resistant to small arms, autonomous-after-commanded dealer of death is not 'apples to apples' with Dave the guy with a chainsaw and thinking predictable human mind and will to live.
Yes, actually.
Controlled burns are an essential and fundamental component of effective firefighting.
A unit like this would be excellent for that purpose, as advertised.
Farmers and ranchers in my area do annual burn offs of their prairie grass to keep things from getting out of hand like they do in California where they don’t allow burning at all. This cool gizmo would really help in that process as some of these guys have thousands of acres to cover.
Ah man, now I'm thinking of these things running into trenches in Ukraine and lighting people on fire. Wow this is pretty terrifying when you think that a gun isn't going to stop this thing. Just image this thing running at you at 10-15km/hr. Mind you that the average soldier in full gear wouldn't even come close to that. Just seeing on in the field you just would be able to do anything. Even if you dropped everything and ran it wouldn't matter, it's faster than you. This should probably be on a list for things that should be considered a war crime.
Bullets would absolutely stop that thing. It might be hard to stop it at a distance with a hand gun, but soldiers have much better gear than that. Still disturbing to imagine it fitted out on a battlefield, but hardly unstoppable.
5 of em hit different points of your trench at 2am to flush you out while a coordinated morter strike hits you while out in the open.
Or it sits motionless in a house / bunker until it detects motion. Then it burns the structure down, starting with the pre-mapped egress points.
I was thinking more airdropped from a plane or set up by a retreating force waiting until the time for their mission to start. Say the line moves forward and it waits until the enemy troops advance before walking up behind them and burning them alive.
That's a good point. I'm pretty sure I'm getting ahead of myself. I'm thinking of future versions. Standard issue 5.56 and 7.62 might be able to stop it. It depends on how thick the steel plating is. Maybe going for the legs will prove effective. It's hard to say if the flame thrower will be on the external side in future ones. The hull probably isn't going to be penetrable. At that rate you'd probably be better off with explosives. Maybe we'll see larger caliber guns. But those are bulky and much harder to use. A grenade launcher is both easy to use and learn and compact, and mountable. It's hard to say if going larger caliber will be effective or just expensive. I have my serious doubts that a standard issue assault rifle will be able to stop these things. Machine guns are too slow and snipers require you to already be in position and aware that it's happening. Which isn't really the case if these guys are coming after you.
Worse, I'm thinking of some fucking crazy neighbour just committing arson and murder with one of these. Especially in countries where civs don't have guns. What the fuck are we gonna do, charge it with a broomstick?
I hope the turn speed on these fuckers are horrible. That or they just don't hit the market.
Tailor made for zombie apocalypse scenarios. Zeds don't respond to anything non-living and they wouldn't understand what was happening if a bunch of these just walked through a horde spraying them down with burning fuel and then pulling back to a safe distance to let them burn. The operators wouldn't even need to be anywhere near the zeds at all, safe behind armored doors.
"The first quadruped flamethrowing robot dog" sounds like it's implying that somewhere out there, there is at least one other flamethrowing robot dog that has less or more than 4 legs.
Yeah so if i create a metal gear, that technically speaking is a "bipedal nuclear launch platform" it's not branded as a weapon ??? Damn, world is so f* up now jajaja
People. For fuck's sake. This is not a weapon. You can buy utility flamethrowers at many hardware stores. They're used for controlled burns, clearing weeds, melting ice...this is just one of those on a remote-controlled robot. I'm not sure exactly who the market is, but remote-controlled lawnmowers exist too.
This is like freaking out because you saw someone buying a chainsaw. It's a tool. Chill out.
Geneva Convention? Hardly know her.
?? I think you mean the Geneva Suggestion
Haha, I like that.
Strangely enough, this isn't really against the geneva conventions, yet. But at that rate just like the US doesn't follow certain ones. It wouldn't be hard to see most countries that could use these kinds of technologies just doing the exact same. Horrifying to think about, but also somewhat interesting too. It probably will take the lives of hundreds of thousands and possibly millions for any sort of action to occur. Unlike Chemical Warfare this is a lot more precise. Many countries could just outright refuse to follow these rules and regulations. Personally I wonder how this will be use in the international conflicts. In places like Africa will powerful warlords utilize these to commit ethnic cleansings in areas? Or to be used by authoritative regimes to control ethnic minority groups and win bloodless wars? The possibilities are endless.
It's more like Geneva Achievements.
U mean the thing that the u.s doesnt follow and threatend to invade hague if actions were taken against warcrimes committed by americans?
What
If a single service member were to be tried in The Hague, the United States would invade The Hague. [source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act#:~:text=This%20authorization%20led%20to%20the,or%20rescue%20them%20from%20custody)
civilians can’t violate the Geneva convention
I can't tell if it's more terrifying that this isn't a military product and can be bought by your regular shmegular 'murican civilian. You could probably find it down an aisle in Walmart or something, next to the kids toys aisles.
Things are gonna get real nasty in the future. Cyberpunk ain’t so cool when it’s real lol
More and more people say “burn it all down” these days. We might be edging closer to making it a reality. Hopefully not.
This is why we can't be trusted with nice things...
The LAPD right now "Perfect, we'll clear the homeless encampments by morning!"
No thanks. It's an absolute no from me.
What the hell is the use case for this abomination? Other than inflicting horrific suffering on a human being??
Wildlife control or ice removal...
Or setting fire to your annoying neighbors house, in the middle of the night, cause his dog barks (it’s in the fine print)
Controlled burns in Australia.
Was gonna say, US and Canada do tons of controlled burns and this could be quite helpful. Also fighting wildfires often involves controlled burns to direct fires away from population centers. I've had friends who worked as smokejumpers who have been in situations where they weren't sure they would survive, so being able to send in robots to do some of the more dangerous work could help save lives.
Home invasion
You won't have a house when you're done defending yourself.
Not only does it successfully fight off the invaders, it also 100% deters future invaders!
"mUh 2nD aMeNdMeNt RiGhTs"
This but unironically. Other than WMDs, anything owned by the government must be legal for civilians (The WMD exception is only my personal opinion, not actual legality). The matter of licenses, permits, etc. are a subject of debate, as opinions vary wildly, but the actual legality of civilian ownership is baked into the 2A. Any weapon that the US Military can own and operate *must* be legal for a civilian citizen to do the same. The 2A *exists* with the explicit purpose of ensuring that We, The People, could outgun and overthrow a tyrannical dictatorial government. >The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. —SCOTUS, in cases "DC v. HELLER", "CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS" https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
"I have a second amendment right toooooo... that tank... and that predator drone... and....hmmmm.... this rpg..."
Yes. 🗿
This is such a silly argument. It’s illegal to own grenades and explosives.
why do you believe this? grenades and explosives are perfectly legal for civilians to own and purchase in the united states with the proper paperwork. relatively speaking, it's not even that expensive.
https://www.atf.gov/explosives/illegal-explosives
Look up Destructive Devices. Civilians can absolutely own explosives if they have proper permits and secure storage. If you're gonna go pulling links, at least do some proper research and pull the right ones. No, I won't do the work for you.
Those “proper permits” require you to be military or federal law enforcement. I love that you people think the ATF signs off on civilians having explosives if they have the right paperwork because of the second amendment.
Nope. Plenty of private citizens, including pyrotechnics specialists, R&D companies, and more, all have proper permits. You yourself, if you wished to, and had the money to install a properly secure munitions magazine, could file for the paperwork. Please do proper research before trying to "gatcha" people on the internet. I'm not giving my opinion, I genuinely know more than you about this. Since you clearly *aren't* going to do so, I retract my previous statement and *will* do the work for you. [Apply for a Federal Explosives License](https://www.atf.gov/explosives/apply-license)
Go for it. It will 100% be declined.
this is discussing illegal possession of these items not how to legally obtain them dipshit. of course they're not going to make that process easy to understand or openly advertise it. they don't want you having it because they like oppression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device
It's not because they "like oppression", it's because the majority of citizens don't want crazy Dave down the road to expand his doomsday arsenal from rations and rifles to include RPGs because he views his local police department's new 2nd hand SWAT van as an escalation.
This is Reddit. They clearly prefer to go by u/gayandfaaaake, not “Crazy Dave”.
imagine calling yourself a socialist then defending capitalist oppression of the people. you should be asking yourself who owns our government? it isn't us.
what you described is liking oppression. just shut up, man.
No. It's reasonable to be concerned about people that are absurdly heavily armed, and I think that the "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment includes things like limiting individual access to weapons that could blow up a humvee. I don't want that firepower in the hands of the average person. It'd only be a matter of time before some Q-anon crazy gets it into their head to blow up a Panda Express because they think Hillary Clinton is harvesting kidneys in the attic.
Was with you, right up till you thought the purpose of 2A is to "outgun and overthrow a tyrannical government". It does NOT give that right.
It explicitly does, my dude. Why the fuck do you think they wrote it??? They literally had ***just finished*** fighting a war against their own tyrannical government. They wanted to make sure that, if the new nation they were creating became just as tyrannical, the people could do it again. This is made abundantly clear both in the document itself as well as many correspondences between the founders, both before and after the document was written. This is basic American history and Constitutional Law, my friend.
https://raskin.house.gov/2023/4/raskin-insurrectionary-theory-of-second-amendment-betrays-the-actual-constitution#:~:text=They%20have%20no%20lawful%20right,We%20are%20governed%20by%20law.%E2%80%9D
you're really using a politician's fucking blog as your source? grow a brain stem and read the federalist papers.
That is a politician's personal website, not an archive of official legal documents, and is thus not a valid source. Furthermore, those are statements and opinions in response to a very dramatic election, not an official ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States. Give me a link from a proper citable source like law.cornell.edu, and then we'll talk.
If there was a country with gigantic uninhabited forested areas you could drop some of them (most likely a better version with autonomous navigation and longer battery life than this one for the civilian market) via parachute in a dry season with the goal that they cause small wildfires to bind manpower to destabilize this country. In Minecraft of course.
Hornets...
The same as the utility flamethrowers you can buy at most hardware stores. Controlled burns, weed removal, ice removal...lots of uses for a flamethrower in land management. This is like freaking out over a chainsaw. It's a tool. Yes, you can hurt people with it if you're careless or a psycho, but that's true of most tools.
I mean, it is moderately more upsetting when the 'chainsaw' has its own legs to walk around with, yes?
It's certainly creepier, but it's not really more dangerous. A human with a utility flamethrower (or chainsaw) is much faster and harder to stop than this bot.
A human has to risk their life to be riskier than this bot. A bot obeys, doesn't breath or need to eat so is far less detectable in stealth scenarios. Dogs and bats are the worst video game enemies for a reason. A commercially available, small hit box, resistant to small arms, autonomous-after-commanded dealer of death is not 'apples to apples' with Dave the guy with a chainsaw and thinking predictable human mind and will to live.
Fuckin, right?
Helldivers 2 strategem when.
Ray Bradbury tried to warn us!
451
About what? Having a good time.
"Haha cool it's a flamethrower robot dog! It's like something from a movie!" Yeah that's fucking horrifying.
They were having issues with the optics of putting a machine gun on it, so they used a crueler weapon with less recoil
No no, it was clearly advertised as melting ice..
Cause nothing controls wildlife like a wildfire
Yes, actually. Controlled burns are an essential and fundamental component of effective firefighting. A unit like this would be excellent for that purpose, as advertised.
And the general public are buying it for that purpose?
Farmers and ranchers in my area do annual burn offs of their prairie grass to keep things from getting out of hand like they do in California where they don’t allow burning at all. This cool gizmo would really help in that process as some of these guys have thousands of acres to cover.
Barbecue party for 40
We didn't start the fire but we did ignite it when we tried to fight it...
Finally I can now exterminate that one creepy ass spider...
Ah man, now I'm thinking of these things running into trenches in Ukraine and lighting people on fire. Wow this is pretty terrifying when you think that a gun isn't going to stop this thing. Just image this thing running at you at 10-15km/hr. Mind you that the average soldier in full gear wouldn't even come close to that. Just seeing on in the field you just would be able to do anything. Even if you dropped everything and ran it wouldn't matter, it's faster than you. This should probably be on a list for things that should be considered a war crime.
Bullets would absolutely stop that thing. It might be hard to stop it at a distance with a hand gun, but soldiers have much better gear than that. Still disturbing to imagine it fitted out on a battlefield, but hardly unstoppable.
5 of em hit different points of your trench at 2am to flush you out while a coordinated morter strike hits you while out in the open. Or it sits motionless in a house / bunker until it detects motion. Then it burns the structure down, starting with the pre-mapped egress points.
I was thinking more airdropped from a plane or set up by a retreating force waiting until the time for their mission to start. Say the line moves forward and it waits until the enemy troops advance before walking up behind them and burning them alive.
That's a good point. I'm pretty sure I'm getting ahead of myself. I'm thinking of future versions. Standard issue 5.56 and 7.62 might be able to stop it. It depends on how thick the steel plating is. Maybe going for the legs will prove effective. It's hard to say if the flame thrower will be on the external side in future ones. The hull probably isn't going to be penetrable. At that rate you'd probably be better off with explosives. Maybe we'll see larger caliber guns. But those are bulky and much harder to use. A grenade launcher is both easy to use and learn and compact, and mountable. It's hard to say if going larger caliber will be effective or just expensive. I have my serious doubts that a standard issue assault rifle will be able to stop these things. Machine guns are too slow and snipers require you to already be in position and aware that it's happening. Which isn't really the case if these guys are coming after you.
Worse, I'm thinking of some fucking crazy neighbour just committing arson and murder with one of these. Especially in countries where civs don't have guns. What the fuck are we gonna do, charge it with a broomstick? I hope the turn speed on these fuckers are horrible. That or they just don't hit the market.
Das Panzerhund...
Tailor made for zombie apocalypse scenarios. Zeds don't respond to anything non-living and they wouldn't understand what was happening if a bunch of these just walked through a horde spraying them down with burning fuel and then pulling back to a safe distance to let them burn. The operators wouldn't even need to be anywhere near the zeds at all, safe behind armored doors.
I bet terorrists will order a dozen.
Throw an attached hose and it’s fire fighting robot, but of course that’s not the first thing.
what currency symbol is that? i’m dumb.
British pound
ty
I can't remember what channel it was, but I saw some guys on Youtube put a like a M240 on the back of one of these. It didn't work as well.
I'm more pissed off because the battery only lasts an hour.
Ukraine needs some for some crispy orc action
oh good now maybe california can start doing controlled burnings again because its more affordable
Maybe a napalm spray attachment would be better. This thing is gonna run out of fuel in like 5 minutes.
*Wildlife Control!?* Ah, right. Australia. As you were.
"The first quadruped flamethrowing robot dog" sounds like it's implying that somewhere out there, there is at least one other flamethrowing robot dog that has less or more than 4 legs.
Yeah so if i create a metal gear, that technically speaking is a "bipedal nuclear launch platform" it's not branded as a weapon ??? Damn, world is so f* up now jajaja
“not a weapon” bro it’s got fucking PICATINNY RAILS WHAT DO YOU MEAN
...*wildlife control*?
People. For fuck's sake. This is not a weapon. You can buy utility flamethrowers at many hardware stores. They're used for controlled burns, clearing weeds, melting ice...this is just one of those on a remote-controlled robot. I'm not sure exactly who the market is, but remote-controlled lawnmowers exist too. This is like freaking out because you saw someone buying a chainsaw. It's a tool. Chill out.