Does Spraying Terrorists with Hidden Missile-Targeting Dust Make Sense?

I think we should spray Hornetson with the magic dust.

Not actually as dumb as it first sounds, target recognition and tracking (especially targets moving in and out of crowds for example) can be difficult.

The problem is tagging the target (and ONLY the target) in the first place, which is even more difficult with anything with the words "air dispersal" attached to it!

If you can find them to spray them, why not just vaporize them?

What if you found them to target them in a very public area, say a NYC police station. Maybe you tag them there, and then they are easily tracked to a less public area for hmm, not sure what, since assassination is actually illegal, remember the baby boomers were so offended when they thought Nixon was having the CIA do that and outlawed assassinations (unless of course old age has made them re-think their former beliefs or maybe it is racial some ethnic groups are ok now, but communists or african muslims terrorists were not, who knows).

One step closer to targeted munitions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_bullet

A bit like how they were portrayed in the classic movie "Runaway".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_%281984_film%29

You can run from the camera man but you cannot hide.

I thought they already had it sorted

I don't count that famous incident for a number of reasons, mainly because it was so badly conceived and executed (in so many ways) that most fiction writers wouldn't have used it as a plot element in their stories because they feared the readers may not take them seriously.

_{Jack - <psst> the cold war is over, has been for a while. Didn't you get the secret memo?}

Hang on - you can't just introduce a new set of parameters, like "fiction writers" and "take them seriously"

_{Though I do admit that the OP and Gizmag journalists' take on the AF112-002 Aerial Distribution of Taggants, demonstrates fictionalization for 'knee-jerk sheep reaction' is way preferable to effort on technical or tactical comprehension}

^{_{<yeah, got one from Romeo>}}

This is a joke!

The coward terrorists have proven that they can, and will, hide among innocent civilians, or behind them. This isn't a targeting problem on our part.............the terrorists are cowards..........period.

Determine the value of a target(s), determine how much collateral damage is acceptable based on that value, and take them out. It won't take long for the civilians to figure out that aiding the bad guys is a losing proposition.........................yes, I think in many instances, the civilians know exactly who the terrorists are, and are willing participants in hiding/protecting them.

This makes as much sense as apprehending terrorists, reading them their Miranda rights, providing them with a taxpayer funded ACLU lawyer, and flying them to NYC for a civilian trial.

I agree, we should just summarily execute that IMF guy, afterall he did terrorize americans (a hotel maid is american also). He is not an american, he used terror against americans, and he hid amongst civilians.

If he declared war on us, called for our annihilation, and we had been at war with him for ten years, you are absolutely correct.

Is a specific call for war required to be a terrorist?

I am unaware of a specific declaration of War against a terrorist group, maybe a country but that would be different.

The CFR defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives". It doesn't require any declaration of war or to annihilate someone, just a unlawful use of force against persons or property meant to intimidate or coerce. Accordingly, a rape of an individual american would constitute a unlawful use of force against a person to coerce for his social objective. Hmm, actually a union strike could constitute terrorism (as there is frequently force used by the unions).

Also, I am not sure that there is any requirement for a length of time over which a declared war must have been active for someone to be classified as a terrorist. What is the relevence of the time, do we have to allow specifically 10 years before we can decide they are terrorists? so one act of could not constitute terrorism and thus the persons involved might not be terrorists?