ZOMBIE FORUMS

I have a little weapons system here that is going to blow your fucking mind.

Do you really need that many bullets per minute?!

then why does no one use them...?

give me an ak over weird crap like that any day, 50 million people can't be wrong now

ollie .. that's like saying :: 50 million people eat mcdonalds because it's the best food ... 50 million people use microsoft becuase it's the best operating system (ok, i'm a little biased here ..)

but my point is, just because lot's of people use them, doesn't mean they're the best, but i'll bow down to your gunnuttedness (cool, i invented a word ... ) and accept that you know what you're talking about there ;)

Do you think that we will continue to develop more complex weapons, dependent on conventionl ordanance?

I say this because, most of the newer weapons use more power, be it electric or explosive in nature.

Perhaps the future weaponary will be powered by organic cells?

Are hand weapons the way of the future, why not let the drones do all the work?

Just not a follower of big is best.

Big is scariest, also makes u a bigger target? Maybe there will be no one left?

Sorry no answers, just opinions

Btw, loved some of thos links, gotta get me some of those.

shobbz

Might not be the best but to some extent, all of those things WORK, to a well known and measured extent, you know what it's going to do, you can count on it.

That attitude can be taken too far, if it was the only line of reasoning, we'd still be stuck on swords and crossbows. But when the potential effectiveness increase is low percentage enough, at that point you can just throw more people with AKs at the enemy for the same effect.

MiB brought up a very interesting point about the Metal Storm: It could potentially be more psychological than practical. Can you just imagine how the enemy would feel when the building next to him is turned to DUST by a million rounds per minute? The tracers would form a solid block...now THAT I'd like to see.

Now that I think about it the only kind of mecha I think might take off might be something akin to the little ones seen in Matrix Revolution. Any bigger and it would start to get impractical but something that size might be workable. We would need to invest in winsheilds though because of our fixation with projectile weapons. (as seen in the previous couple posts)

recoil is compensated for by making the guns non-recoil operated, ie chain gun or rotary multi-barreled, look them up, they have recoil, but nothing to worry about

mechs won't work without a <I>special form of fusion</I> (tm The Matrix) so lets stick to real world stuff

pictures scanned from this month's Combat & Survival mag (http://www.combatandsurvival.com/) showing the <B>new</B> SA80A2 with <B>new</B> H&K AG36 40mm grenade launcher. Along with the new Minimi Para this will be issued to each rifle scetion, so a section of 4 guys get 1 SA80A2, one SA80A2 with AG36, one SA80A2 LSW (heavy longer barrel with bipod for sniping and limited LMG duties) and one Minimi Para. Nice mix of firepower and versitility. the grenade launcher can take 40mm AP, HE, flare, CS gas and shotgun rounds

a 40mm shotgun = big ouch



they might not be post-space age but they are cutting edge <I>active</I> technology, being moved into the Army as I type to give the infantry more firepower and flexability than ever before at squad level (also the AI L115A .338 Magnum sniper rifle is issued to each platoon's best marksman for the full time sniper role)

as for reducing buildings, we have tanks with 120mm cannons for that, note the pictures from last night's raids in Iraq: building, boom, dust, rubble.

the technology of the future will be better technology of today, not new magickal devices that will win wars with the push of a button, even in the nuclear age we still rely on a conventional force to go in and do the fighting after all the nukes have been thrown around, nukes start a war, men and guns end them[/img]

The US army is <a href="http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=129937&p=irol-newsArticle&t=Regular&id=454441&">buying one million dollars worth of tasers</a>. The company claims to have improved the knock-down power since the 90's when the LA police allegedly had to use their tasers as clubs to take down a coked-up Rodney King. They now electrically induce severe muscular spasms instead of relying on pain alone to stop the target.

I suppose the idea is that patrolling soldiers can stun first and ask questions later. A one million dollar military contract seems kind of small, though. I wonder if they're running some kind of large-scale field trial before deciding to buy more.

Personnaly, I don't really like those big rifles... They have a lot of fire power, but like some people said here, they are a pain to take care for. My perssonal favorit is a kind of a sniper rifle (I think it's colled 'Barret') that is extremely havy, but strong enough to kill people hiding in houses (shooting throu the wall, I mean).

And now, a point worth thinking about nukes:
How many people died from nukes? Even if you include the redioactive cancer and stuff, is far less then half a million. Now, how many people have died from kalachnikovs (I don't know how to spell it...)? I would say something in the tens of millions.
So why do we fear nukes more then klach'es?

Erm why would you need to shoot through a wall...?

Throw a grenade inside or over the wall, does the same job for less weight and you get to keep your nifty small automatic.

-MiB

Two reasons (neither of which may be very good reasons objectively speaking, but this is the way our minds work):

1.
Q: How many nukes did it take to kill those ~0.5 million people?
A: ~2.
Q: How many kalachnikovs (think you got the spelling right, though I haven't checked) has it taken to kill those tens of millions?
A: I dunno, but a fuck of a lot more than 2.
Moral of the story: A single nuke is much more deadly than a lone firearm.

2. Nukes have a much more flashy effect (both literally and figuratively speaking), whereas the effects of kalachnikovs and other guns are more mundane, and become increasingly so as their commonality spreads.
So the more often something is attributed as the source of human death, the less it shocks us when it kills people.

These are the same reason we fear things like hurricanes and earthquakes a whole lot more than we do cars, even though the latter claim a fuck of a lot more lives than natural disasters do (at least in the 'States).

the 2 nuclear bombs dropped at the end of WW2 killed around 1/3 of a million over the first few post war years, most from rad-cancer. 'general' world deaths from nuclear weapons and nuclear waste have, so it is said, killed around 65million (someone pulled that out of their ass, please double/half as your tendancy allows) so that's quite a little more than the 1/2mil mentioned above, you've got to take into account all the rads from the testing and the waste products from the industry that makes the things, much of which could be counted as 'friendly fire' in a way as a lot of it falls on the nation producing the weapons

back on topic, as for <B>future</B> weapons, and in the nuclear angle, you'll be looking at uranium and other such ultra dense radioactive materials being used in more and more devices

what the hell you say?

well, think A10 tankbuster planes "oooh, big minigun etc" yeah, nuclear bullet minigun (kinda) see, they fire (as one round option) DU slugs, not only do these cause heavy damage as they hit due to normal ballistic laws, but the fallout they cause is RADIOACTIVE to the point that they are only allowed to be fired in wartime, same goes for the main round of the Abrams and Challenger 2 battletanks, DU sabots at a mile a min cause some damage when they hit, but oh, when the tank they pop burns, yep, more radioactive fallout. Also these tanks have DU layers in their armour, if they get hit and burn (some did in the Gulf conflict at the moment) then yes, MORE radioactive fallout

so the future will carry DU in more rounds and more armour (it's ultra high security stuff, only the US and UK really has it etc) and this will also cause more radioactive fallout when the things are used, and that doesn't decide which side to attack, you'll end up with no-go areas and hot zones where battles took place that will last for decades to come

so nuclear weapons and products are VERY big things to think about the future, even if we don't actually use them in the classical sense, take your finger off your AK and it stops killing, fire a DU round and it'll be burning for decades

Nuclear weapons are absolutly worthless, because after you use them you can't occupy the area you just turned into a radioactive wasteland. There is no such thing as a 'tactical' application of nuclear force; the things are too powerful.

However, the radiation emitted from depleted uranium rounds and weapons system is neglible at best; for example, the Rocky Mountains generate more radiation then all the depleted uranium in the world combined. Low yield nuclear weapons capable of creating the situations you describe are not even in development - there are far better ways of doing the same amount of damage, with the lasting effections of heavy radiation. Again, an example: a MOAB can cause comparable devestation for a lower cost and without the side effects.

The strongest weapon in the army's arsenal, now and in the future, will be the individual soldiers; no matter who hands them the saw, they will be the ones who have to cut it. Powered exoskeletons, improved weaponry - all the stuff that can be dreamed up and made into reality - are but supports for the actual soldiers who will have to move in, defeat the enemy, and occupy the territory won.

so the last 60 years of nuclear stand off didn't happen then? they'd never really have pressed the buttons because, hey, it's all stupid really, lets bin them and not have huge SALT agreements and non-prolif. rules and regs etc, and the UN security council? it's just coincidence that all are nuclear armed nations eh?

when the tank was invented a large section of the population and armed services met it with horror, the dehumanisation of combat into a mechanical killing machine, ugh, they'll never be used again after the end of WW1 will they? horrible useless things

90 years on

radiation coming out of a mountain doesn't matter, it's when it's ON FIRE at your feet that it matters generic radiation isn't too bad at low levels as an ethereal force, it's when it's attached to dust/smoke particles that enter your lungs (and other foodchain/bodily functions) that you start having trouble with cancer, burning tanks killed with/made out of uranium isn't good however you look at it now is it?

battlefield nukes are a reality by the way, just because you can make them into city busters doesn't mean that you can't make small ones, the Soviets saw them as nothing more than a one shot alternative to a conventional artillery barrage, there's a reason most mid and later Cold War vehicles and armies were NBC proof (to some degree) as everyone was fully prepared to use nukes at ALL levels of warfare, from artillery shells to ICBM city killers as a matter of course, I'll actually get the stats of the things if you want, they'll be about 20 years old from my soviet books, and that means they've got BETTER over the years by the way

once again 'cost' is somewhat non-sensical in the context of weapons, especially special ones that get their own funding, the money and filtered down technology make the country run, military industrial complex and all

the best way to win a war is not to fight it, ion that sense nukes were the best weapon ever, in the future *threats* will stop wars as they always have, it's only a matter of refining technology as we have at the moment, I can't see exoskeletons really working in the short term, best to actually TRAIN the troops we send into combat rather than cover them in gadgets by far, come on, machine guns have been used for over a century, rifles for hundreds of years... it's all about refining, not pulling things out of cartoons

You misinterpretted what I said: Nuclear weapons are utterly worthless in a tactical sense. They cannot be used to subdue a force and occupy the area thus subdued. All they can do is render an area inhospitable to both sides. Thus, it is called "MAD" for good reason. One nuclear armed nation would not use its arsenal against another so armed, for both would lose in the resulting conflagration. There, you are correct: the last 60 years of nuclear standoff did happen, but no nation has used the destructive force of nuclear weapons, partly for fear of retaliation. Thus, nuclear weapons are quite useless as weapons. Sure, as threats, as MAD; but as actual weapons they have no use.


Think in practical terms, using real world examples. The tank is a poor choice, as it has no where near the scope or destructive force of a nuclear weapon. A tank can be countered with convential means: a lone soldier with a LAW can destroy a tank. A nuclear weapon can only be not used; once launched, the only option is to bear the attack or retaliate. The weapon is pratically impossible to deter, as evidenced by the repeated failures of various missle defense systems. Neither side can counter a nuclear assault, so the only option is retaliation when attacked. Furthermore, a tank, after being used, can occupy and hold territory. A nuclear weapon can only blast it, making it useless to both sides.

America did not use large scale nukes in Iraq: such would have been unthinkable, as no country would have remained - only a radiated desert. The Soviets never used nuclear weapons instead of an artillery barage. Why? Because you cannot move your own troops onto radiated land and expect them to live long. You can always say "They COULD have," but the very fact that they -did not-, even though given ample oppertunity in many situations, proves that nuclear weapons were considered and rejected by both sides as conventional style weapons.

Furthermore, the danger posed by burning tanks with depleted uranium armoring to the lungs is no greater then breathing in the particles in a sand storm. It takes quite a lot of radiation, giving in consistent doses, to induce cancerous cells to grow; you need enough radiation to warp the DNA of the cells, or cause malignant growth. Small particles can tear the lungs, causing growths. However, I severly doubt that unless exposed to constant radioactive storms of dust from burning tanks (such as weeks or months of exposure), cancer would develop.

I am not a doctor (IANAD?), however, so this may be in error, but what I have read elsewhere seems to say cancer due to radiation must have long term exposure.

Normally thats true, unless you get dusty filled with radiation in your lungs; in which case well then, you have dust with radioactivity in your damn lungs, that does a lot more damage to your insides than normal radiation would.

And Ollie mentioned, nukes can be used in the tactical sense, so what if a battlefield is rendered useless? They already are, for the most part, for years at a time and nobody looks farther than a day or two in military terms, if using a nuke in the middle of the battlefield creates a big gaping hole in the enemy lines they're gonna be used.

In fact that was the US plan right after WWII, the soviets were so superior militarily they figured they'd just be using nukes tactically all day every day, I mean the choice is between losing the entire country to communism or making a few acres uninhabitable, whats the big deal?

-MiB

Because nukes do not make just a few acres uninhabitable: they lay waste to large portions of terrain, and nuclear fallout can spread many miles away. Chernobyl had no atomic blast to accompany its demise; however, its effect upon the region is easily noted by the extremely high rates of cancer and other disease in the surrounding areas.

As it stands today, we do not need nuclear weapons to defeat a foe; therefore, the high cost of using them need not be incurred.

ok, hands up who knows what they're talking about in relation to nuclear weapons/radiation...

PUT THAT HAND DOWN AERK

not to repeat myself (though perhaps top clarify) but I see most points brought up here just plain wrong, to randomly address them:

<B>battlefield Nukes</B> are a reality, all the big powers have them, the ARE replacements for conventional arms, once use of them has been authorised they are then down to whatever level of command are allowed to approve their deployment, for instance in the Cuban Missile Crisis the local Russian advisor was issued with nukes to use on a possible American invasion force and authorised to use them at his discretion (the USA found out about this much later on, never really believing the Soviets allowed local commanders the big (small) red button option so freely)

they come in the larger, SRM size, such as fired from Scud/Frog type platforms down to smaller 155 and 203mm artillery rounds (Western and Soviet versions of them) these are in around the 0.2KT size, big, but no bigger than a sustained barrage by artillery or strike bombers, less men needed to fire it, no pilots to risk etc, battlefield WMDs were much more embedded in Soviet doctrine than western so they took a practical look at them more than a political one

<B>Nukes irradiate the land 4-EVA</B> well not really, depending on how big the thing is (a 25MT city killer is a *lot* more than a 0.2KT shell, do the maths) and how dirty (no one really wants a dirty bomb unless they're mad) and as MiB put it, as a battlefield commander you look for the win, if as a Soviet commander you can win with a nuke or lose with conventional forces, you nuke them and move on, when you're won the war you go and live in the nice non-glowing parts of the world, let the losers love in the rad-zones

one of the main things that the use of nukes on the battlefield does is make the concentration of forces impractical, there was a consideration to use battlefield nukes in the Korean war when attacked with the stereotypical 'human wave' attacks of the NK and Chinese forces, in the end napalm (technically a chemical weapon) and lots of bombs were used instead, the threat was there though. no one needed to use nukes in Iraq, the weapons that were used were overkill

<B>tanks are useless thus so are nukes</B> only a very modern 'law' type anti-tank weapon can threaten a tank, they are APC/bunker busters for the most part, Challenger 2 and Abrams tanks took scores of RPG hits over the last few months with hardly any effect

<B>MAD</B> is the doctrine that each side has so many big nukes that you will destroy each other, that is to say each other's countries and infrastructure, literally back to the stone age. there are levels of nuclear war, MAD only comes into it at the very top of the scale, depending on how angry the forces feel at the time they can justify big or little nukes either as a first strike or as retaliation etc, I repeat, MAD is the very top end of armed conflict.

<B>Chernobyl</B> this is what I'm talking about, as you so rightly (kinda) say, there was no 'blast' that is to say no classic nuclear bomb blast, more a case of the plant overheating and burning

did I say burning? thus having the same effect (on a much larger and single location case) as a tank or shell that is made of DU burning? I think you'll find it is. the effects are in a way the so called 'dirty bomb' that has been in the news recently effect, little blast but lots of radioactive PARTICLES contaminating the area, bigger the 'bomb' (or burning tank, burning shells, reactor core ETC) the bigger the radioactive fallout afterwards, thus the bigger the mess

<B>fallout</B> by the way, is not 'pure' radiation, it's the local area contaminated with radiation, you know the nuclear mushroom cloud that goes up with a bomb? that's the material from eth ground being forced up/out by the blast, it's now radioactive and now up in the atmosphere in clouds of particles, that's the danger, the radioactive dirt floating around ready to be breathed in, ingested, covered with etc. you are not a doctor, and you are in error.

<B>NBC protection</B> as I said, most first world forces have a pretty high level of NBC protection, from gasmasks (to stop breathing in fallout particles) to full combat body suits to stop getting eth chemicals onto your skin and a limited radiation proofing. also there are facilities available at the regimental level to decontaminate men and machines that have came out of a hot zone before they move into a clean one, fighting and working in a recently WMDed area isn't nice, but it is doable, and has been to greater degrees since the first gas attacks in WW1


<B>BACK ON TOPIC</B>

NBC protection will improve and become more usable (better vision and comfort in full body suits and gasmasks etc) and the low end of nuclear weapons will be fully exploited with more DU being issued for anti-armour applications, like Tungsten was in WW2 as the new heavy core to AP shells.

by the way, I can't believe no one's brought up Red Mercury yet, i'll go into some theories on that is y'all really want more future nuke-talkin'