How would a weaponized quadcopter be efficient weight-wise?

>grow deadly bacteria or virus
>put on quadcopter
>make it slowly release the bacteria
>fly quadcopter over new york city

Put laser designator and thermal camera on the quadcoptor

Put the laser-guided weapons on something big enough to carry and launch them.

>>57251688
Chemical weapons are more efficient.

>>57251150
>>57251812
>>57251688
These posts have been reported to the Hague for potential violations of the Geneva convention.

That being said, in terms of deaths to weight ratio, nothing compares to plain ol' smallpox. We don't vaccinate for smallpox anymore, it would kill many millions of people. As recently as 1967 2 million people died of smallpox.

So the big thing about small drones is not that one can deliver something deadly, it's that one can deliver something deadly in a much smarter and cheaper manner. So take an Abram tank for instance, it cost 6.2 million dollars. One might be able to disable an abrams tank if one could maneuver a quadcopter with a thermite grenade into the tank's treads. Now it can't move. For $1000 you have made a 6.2 million dollar piece of machinery pretty much useless. Heck maybe do this with a bunch of quadcopters. Thermite the gun. Swarm the damn thing.

most people that are interested in weaponizing drones like the OP are retarded /k/ommandos who think of taping a beretta to a drone. that's not how most drone warfare is going to be waged. it'll be chemical, biological, etc... like the others here have said.

given that you can ensure none of your own could get killed in the process, yes weaponized quadcopters will be efficient.

Fuck. I don't want to die in the Great Drone War. Going to invest in a few hundred of them and have them generate a shield of some sort around me.

The NSA is monitoring this thread.