would it be possible for the US to have suicide bombers that

the reason sandniggers have to resort to suicide vests is because they don't have ballistics, why the would you risk a soldier's life when you could mortar the hell out of them quickly and easily

File: image.jpg (61KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 720x720px

>>34990431
>suicide bombers that survive

>>34990466
>not having veteran suicide bombers who survive only by the grace of god and a metric shiton of luck.

>>34990431
No, those suits basically just keep your mush all in the same bag so there's one big piece to bury instead of a mist with quarter-sized chunks sprayed all over the desert.

>>34990431
No. A typical rating for those suits is stopping 99% of the blast from 1lb of HE 1 meter away.

A Claymore has 24 ounces of HE and the blast would be transmitted directly, instead of through air and multiple variations in density.

>>34990431
why not have some very localized fragmentation bomb where you can precisely target where the fragments go from a distance? You could even have the device impart some angular momentum to the fragments to make it go even farther and more precise, and you could probably even separate the explosives from the arming device so you could have like 30 suicide bombs detonating from the same device. This is even pretty scalable, too. Just make larger devices with larger fragments for greater damage, you can even put explosives in the fragments themselves to detonate on impact so you can suicide bomb a whole area repeatedly from miles away without putting yourself in danger.

>>34990431
Thats what we have precision guided bombs for dummy

This is retarded for so many reasons, every time I blink I think of another reason why this should have been so obviously retarded to you OP

>>34990431
If you already have a claymore, why not just use it the way it's meant to be used: from a distance?

File: 1502476563000.png (675KB, 1035x913px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 1035x913px

>>34990794
You mean a gun?

>>34992004
That's exactly what he's saying. It's sarcasm.

File: Nyet.jpg (104KB, 573x683px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 573x683px

>>34990794
I don't think something like that could ever work, even if it did it'd be unpopular and should probably be banned