When will we replace missiles/bullets?

[GISP]

You will allways have projectile weaponry.
Sure you can have lazors and stuff, but smartweapons keeps getting smarter and smaller. So youll have bullets that can go around corners and stuff at some point.

[Stir]

Have fun controlling your population when there's no planet left anyway, genius.

You fail to realize that we won't be able to destroy the planet. Ourselves, yes. The planet? Not so much.
However, if there are no outside influences left that control our population (and we're getting better and better at preventing and treating pestilence and disease), the only thing that will control our species is hunger. And we'll end up eating the planet empty like the greatest swarm of locusts ever before collapsing upon ourselves.

So yeah; keep trying to fool yourself that uncontrolled population growth is a good thing.

[styopa]

If we could replaces nukes with something less devastating to the environment I would be all for it. Vaporizes humans, but leaves flora in-tact! WOO!

Never heard of the ERW (or "neutron bomb"), then?

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

That's exactly what it does. Basically, it emits 10x the neutrons at nearly 10x the energy of a normal fisson weapon.

[Larynx]

2148, ruins found on Mars.

So Mass Effect is historically accurate then.

[Deleted]

Never heard of the ERW (or "neutron bomb"), then?

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

That's exactly what it does. Basically, it emits 10x the neutrons at nearly 10x the energy of a normal fisson weapon.

"Although their extreme blast and heat effects are not eliminated, it is the enormous radiation released by ERWs that is meant to be a major source of casualties. The levels of neutron radiation released are able to penetrate through thick, protective materials such as armor, making them useful as an anti-tank weapon."

Yeah... That sounds so much less devastating to the environment. The person you quoted was asking for a weapon that would target specifically humans. The neutron bomb doesn't manage that.

[Purlina]

But the Guardsmen use cheap laser rifles.

Guardsmen also use heavy bolters though

[Deleted]

Guardsmen also use heavy bolters though

True, but Lascannons are much better, WH40k is so conflicting.

[Purlina]

True, but Lascannons are much better, WH40k is so conflicting.

Only for killing heavy vehicles, they almost never use lascannons for anti-infentry purposes.

[Adam Jensen]

Yeah, real laser travels at the speed of light, in other words the moment you see it is the moment it hits you. Good luck doding or blocking that =P

Eh, I'm at 102.4

I can't be hit.

[Gilgemesh]

Projectile weaponry will become less useful if and only if we develop a defense for it. If someone were to develop some kind of shielding that could stop any projectile, then development on energy weapons would become more viable. As it is there is very very little that has been developed that will stop any kind of bullet. Even tanks and bunkers go down to .50 cal depleted uranium slugs and the like. That isn't even breaking into other projectile weapons, like missiles and bombs. Then there's nuclear weapons, the guaranteed kill all, why develop anything new when we already possess the means to kill everyone?

[procne]

The moment we find or are able to harness energy more easily, more effectively and freely anywhere around the world, that is when it'll happen. I find a good site to check out is: http://www.futuretimeline.net/

I checked this URL, and it made me giggle:
"2092

West Antarctica is among the fastest growing areas in the world

The icy continent today would be unrecognisable to observers from the 20th century. Its northern peninsula is now home to a multitude of towns and conurbations, with a total population numbering in the millions".

Which part of antractica is "western"?
Which of antarctica's peninsula cannot be called "northern"?

[LolretKJ]

Use of laser technology in warfare has been going on for years, the issue at the moment is that the energy consumption to make them deadly, at safe ranges is so huge it isn't worth it.

The moment we find or are able to harness energy more easily, more effectively and freely anywhere around the world, that is when it'll happen. I find a good site to check out is: http://www.futuretimeline.net/

It isn't some random predictions. These are international agencies & governments announcing what they predict based on current trends and opportunities.

/thread
10char

[Adam Jensen]

Projectile weaponry will become less useful if and only if we develop a defense for it. If someone were to develop some kind of shielding that could stop any projectile, then development on energy weapons would become more viable. As it is there is very very little that has been developed that will stop any kind of bullet. Even tanks and bunkers go down to .50 cal depleted uranium slugs and the like. That isn't even breaking into other projectile weapons, like missiles and bombs. Then there's nuclear weapons, the guaranteed kill all, why develop anything new when we already possess the means to kill everyone?

There's a spider that can spin a web that's 10 times as strong as kevlar.

If we could find a way to duplicate that thread and make it into body armor, who knows?

[Purlina]

Even if they develop a way to harvest energy more effectively there are still major flaws that need to be worked out with energy weaponry.

[Deleted]

Only for killing heavy vehicles, they almost never use lascannons for anti-infentry purposes.

Never had the joy of one shotting the enemy commander first round? Worth it to hear the rage

[Reeve]

I checked this URL, and it made me giggle:
"2092

West Antarctica is among the fastest growing areas in the world

The icy continent today would be unrecognisable to observers from the 20th century. Its northern peninsula is now home to a multitude of towns and conurbations, with a total population numbering in the millions".

Which part of antractica is "western"?
Which of antarctica's peninsula cannot be called "northern"?

Western Antarctica is the part in the western hemisphere. The northern peninsula I'm pretty sure just refers to the part of the peninsula that's farthest to the north.

[Deleted]

I think the arguement "lasers are too xpensive" pretty much sums up why ballistic weapons will remain popular for the forsee-able future.

However, special forces always have top-notch equipment. I dont think in the forsee-able future there would be like navy seal teams equipped with only laser-weapons. But maybe in the forsee-able future they will use a combination of ballistic and laser weapons? Surely laser weapons have some advantages over ballistic weapons (i think of no recoil, no sound, customizable lethality (turn button down for taser - turn button up for evaporate body)) that maybe one of the squad would carry a laser weapon? Anyone know how close we are to building such a weapon that is useable in war?

Edit: another advantage of laser weapons vs ballistic weapons: i would imagine a shot from a laser weapon to be much more accurate, because any ballistic weapon fires a bullet that is subject to gravity, wind, and possibly other forces, while a laser-beam is not subject to any of this (or at least far less).

[Deleted]

It is unlikely that these weapon types will be replaced in the near future. Next stpe wuold be coilguns and/or railguns, but they still use a projectile to deliver energy to the target. It is unlikely that lasers are going to be viable because air is nowhere near optimal optically. It will make the energy scatter over long distances. To counter that more energy is needed, and that is a problem. Coilguns and railguns solve the problem that current chemical propellants have. They are not limited to the velocity of detonation/deflagration that chemicals have.

[Stir]

Then there's nuclear weapons, the guaranteed kill all, why develop anything new when we already possess the means to kill everyone?

Because it's not profitable to use a weapon that kills indiscriminately and causes economic distress due to radiation?

[Adam Jensen]

Use of laser technology in warfare has been going on for years, the issue at the moment is that the energy consumption to make them deadly, at safe ranges is so huge it isn't worth it.

The moment we find or are able to harness energy more easily, more effectively and freely anywhere around the world, that is when it'll happen. I find a good site to check out is: http://www.futuretimeline.net/

It isn't some random predictions. These are international agencies & governments announcing what they predict based on current trends and opportunities.

It's an interesting read and then I get to here:

http://www.futuretimeline.net/beyond.htm#dark

The ultimate end of the world.