Will Projectile Weapons Prevail?
XCan
Join Date: 2002-11-03 Member: 5904Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-11-03 Member: 5904Members, Constellation
As we all know the marines' primary weapon in NS are all projectile based. Now we're talking about humans who can travel to other stars however it seems that their weaponry is still very alike the weapons soldiers use today.
Anyhow my point it, do you think projectile weapons as we know of today still will be used in the distant future?
Anyhow my point it, do you think projectile weapons as we know of today still will be used in the distant future?
Comments
hand held energy weapons of some sort maybe? :| who knows. But I doubt that our armed forces will be fighting aliens with M16's Navy Sub-Machine guns...
Until some other technology has gotten as refined as projectile weapons, then there will be no other reason to use something else. A bullet can kill someone just as well as a laser can.
Until some other technology has gotten as refined as projectile weapons, then there will be no other reason to use something else. A bullet can kill someone just as well as a laser can. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly...
Transporting bullets may be ineficient
BUT....
Wheres the practicality in transporting so much energy to power so called "energy" weapons
Thats right.. plain and simple physics.... ONE energy bolt capable of doing some damage requires a LOT of energy.... as in a freaking TON
Energy wise, a bullet (one explosion) uses MUCH LESS ENERGY, and is therefore more practical...
We may be able to find out ways to increase efficiency, but you cant beat physics, things can only become so efficient, and the bolt of neergy in a laser weapon or similar must posess enough energy both to do sufficient damage, and to....whatever....
I know physics, and i know how much energy is required to make a lightning bolt jump 10 feet... verses fire a bullet 200 feet....(Answer, LOTS more for the lightning bolt)
~Jason
/me runs
Until some other technology has gotten as refined as projectile weapons, then there will be no other reason to use something else. A bullet can kill someone just as well as a laser can. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly...
Transporting bullets may be ineficient
BUT....
Wheres the practicality in transporting so much energy to power so called "energy" weapons
Thats right.. plain and simple physics.... ONE energy bolt capable of doing some damage requires a LOT of energy.... as in a freaking TON
Energy wise, a bullet (one explosion) uses MUCH LESS ENERGY, and is therefore more practical...
We may be able to find out ways to increase efficiency, but you cant beat physics, things can only become so efficient, and the bolt of neergy in a laser weapon or similar must posess enough energy both to do sufficient damage, and to....whatever....
I know physics, and i know how much energy is required to make a lightning bolt jump 10 feet... verses fire a bullet 200 feet....(Answer, LOTS more for the lightning bolt)
~Jason <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
By the physics humans know right now. Humanity won't be getting far from our home planet unless we revolutionize some field of science (most likely physics), and when we do, all the limitations you hold up now may prove easily broken.
You would imagine that by that point AI would be far superior, and even if it wasn't remote controlled weaponry would be a far better method for preserving human life.
But all this talk is silly. It's a game. It's meant to be fun. Not particularly realistic.
Why use a knife when a machine gun can put a few pounds of lead into a target in a minute?
Answer: lower tech = higher reliability <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Who uses knives?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Answer: lower tech = higher reliability <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you say "billions of layers of redundancy?"
Or how about, "cost benefit analysis?"
If you just dock with the ship, and flood the ship with nanobots programmed to metabolize Kharaa then you have no risk of loss of human life nor do you risk damage to the structure.
Jeezus, people, just stick with whatever you got. Or make your own mod, if you're so itching to get some "futuristic realism" (is that a contradiction in and of itself?).
Until some other technology has gotten as refined as projectile weapons, then there will be no other reason to use something else. A bullet can kill someone just as well as a laser can. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly...
Transporting bullets may be ineficient
BUT....
Wheres the practicality in transporting so much energy to power so called "energy" weapons
Thats right.. plain and simple physics.... ONE energy bolt capable of doing some damage requires a LOT of energy.... as in a freaking TON
Energy wise, a bullet (one explosion) uses MUCH LESS ENERGY, and is therefore more practical...
We may be able to find out ways to increase efficiency, but you cant beat physics, things can only become so efficient, and the bolt of neergy in a laser weapon or similar must posess enough energy both to do sufficient damage, and to....whatever....
I know physics, and i know how much energy is required to make a lightning bolt jump 10 feet... verses fire a bullet 200 feet....(Answer, LOTS more for the lightning bolt)
~Jason <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By the physics humans know right now. Humanity won't be getting far from our home planet unless we revolutionize some field of science (most likely physics), and when we do, all the limitations you hold up now may prove easily broken. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
We cant revolutionize physics..... Physics is Physics...
The only thing we can do is find out new things that extend upon already proven things.....we havent disproved anything in physics in.... well forever... we just extend upon already proven theories
The law of conservation of energy, matter, and momentum are absolutes...
We cannot create something from nothing... therefore the energy to do it must already be present....
I believe the answer to energy weapons lies with 0 degrees K
Massless matter.....
Effortless to transport a massless object
but in transporting it, you must touch it, thereby giving it mass in the form of heat.....
Physics is confusing....
~Jason
and i think projectile weapons will prevail.
Consider the longbow, which dominated even into early age of gunpowder. Why? Sheer reliability. Trained soldiers with longbows could manage a higher rate of fire, do just as much damage, without being heavily affected by rain and with little chance of a misfire. Cannon was used for big battering power.
To the same logic, one would imagine that projectile weapons will last for a considerable length of time, with next-gen weaponry only being used as "big guns" up until the point where miniaturisation allows nextgen weaponry to surpass the reliability of existing tech.
Another possibility is that energy based weapons have a chance of facing an energy based countermeasure. Plasma relies on charged ions in a set path, so a defence mechanism could be employed to divert the course of the plasma projectile. Tesla-style weaponry could be grounded harmlessly into the earth. Sheer kinetic energy from our friend the bullet is somewhat harder to avoid, and since the only requirement is that the bullet is a solid of some form, you can see how hard it would be to really make something bullet resistant.
The military and the government also like to consider practicality. A large projective firearm stockpile is cheap to maintain and supply compared to an experimental plasma/sonic/ionic weapon. For big blattering power it would be cost effective to use these weapons, but on the individual scale I would not see a government spending cash on something likely to fall into the hands of an enemy.
Final analysis, you need to take into account reliability, cost, effectiveness, though not necessarily in that order. So I predict the next years will still have cheap and reliable projectile weaponry until energy weapons can do better.
<a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0061015725/qid=1107391778/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0332018-7461513?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>nanobots?</a>
Fusion Plant + Electromagnet + Cannonball = Weapon of the Future
They should add in a railgun to NS.
Until some other technology has gotten as refined as projectile weapons, then there will be no other reason to use something else. A bullet can kill someone just as well as a laser can. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly...
Transporting bullets may be ineficient
BUT....
Wheres the practicality in transporting so much energy to power so called "energy" weapons
Thats right.. plain and simple physics.... ONE energy bolt capable of doing some damage requires a LOT of energy.... as in a freaking TON
Energy wise, a bullet (one explosion) uses MUCH LESS ENERGY, and is therefore more practical...
We may be able to find out ways to increase efficiency, but you cant beat physics, things can only become so efficient, and the bolt of neergy in a laser weapon or similar must posess enough energy both to do sufficient damage, and to....whatever....
I know physics, and i know how much energy is required to make a lightning bolt jump 10 feet... verses fire a bullet 200 feet....(Answer, LOTS more for the lightning bolt)
~Jason <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By the physics humans know right now. Humanity won't be getting far from our home planet unless we revolutionize some field of science (most likely physics), and when we do, all the limitations you hold up now may prove easily broken. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We cant revolutionize physics..... Physics is Physics...
The only thing we can do is find out new things that extend upon already proven things.....we havent disproved anything in physics in.... well forever... we just extend upon already proven theories
The law of conservation of energy, matter, and momentum are absolutes...
We cannot create something from nothing... therefore the energy to do it must already be present.... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh really? They thought they knew everything about physics when Newton was alive. Then when Einstein proved Newton's equations to be limited to a minute range of speeds and masses, people again thought that we knew everything. Wrong again; new theories are already being developed that contradict, limit, or bend the laws of physics as we know them today.
Matter cannot be created or destroyed? Disproven. Researchers have observed that, at the subatomic level, matter quite often <u>does</u> pop in and out of existence without giving off any energy. Impossible by our standards today, but in the future it will be quite accepted. Which is why I say that you cannot even begin to claim that any physical law we have today is immune to not only change, but complete rewriting as well.
[edit]Why is this in General Discussion? It's a Discussion forum topic. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You can't prove something is right 100% of the time and you can't prove something is wrong 100% of the time.
Argument aside here's a cool idea. Build a particle accelerator that can use Plutonium (or uranium..basically things that go boom). Then have a barrel type thing that points at the target. I doubt planets will be able to survive when we send explosive elements flying into their planet at .999999C (c=speed of light). <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
and i think projectile weapons will prevail. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
you must be a noob to the world, Laws of physics is broken many times, infinitely! After 10^41 power, math doesnt apply to anything, and so doesnt physics. Physics is broken many times in space and time, even on parts of earths. physics doesnt apply to everything, there is so much we dont understand. so dont assume laws arent breakable, everything is breakable. learn some quantum physics and theoretical physics before u assume something so big. =)
Because The Matrix, Man on Fire, and all those other great movies just wouldn't work with a lazer gun. And no- that really is the reason. Thats how heavy the world's fixation is on it.
A bullet propelled forward with X energy behind it happens to be a vary effcient way to deliever X energy to target. Even if you develped a energy weapon they could deleiver its energy as quickly and effciently as a bullet you would have to come up with an effient way to store that energy.
Once you mastered those problems you would have to figure a way to do it as cheaply as a projectile weapon.
Personlly I think solid projectiles are here to stay for a long time.
A bullet propelled forward with X energy behind it happens to be a vary effcient way to deliever X energy to target. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well jeez, the most effective way of delivering x amount of energy to a target is to smack it really hard with something, not to shoot something that then flies "burning" its own energy. Obviously compromises are made when choosing weapons, and energy weapons will simply be better able to do some things while trading the ability to do something else well.
Because The Matrix, Man on Fire, and all those other great movies just wouldn't work with a lazer gun. And no- that really is the reason. Thats how heavy the world's fixation is on it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Star Wars? Star Trek? No projectiles there <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Fusion Plant + Electromagnet + Cannonball = Weapon of the Future
They should add in a railgun to NS. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Magnets or not.. every action has an equal and opposite reaction...
Firing cannonballs would never happen from a handheld weapon....
It would need to be bolted to the floor lest you create a crater with your body upon firing
~Jason
Nanobots I tell you!
NANOBOTS!
Why waste all the time capuring energy and storing it when you can release billions of microscopic robots which can feed themselves with solar energy and the energy they obtain from metabolizing the target materials?
We aren't too horribly far away from nanobots. If you believe Moore's Law which is retarded, and if you examine today's bleeding edge technology you could say that in 25 years we will have shrunk our manufacturing process enough to create circuits on the scale of less than a nanometer. Present design techniques support .09 micrometers. So yeah, despite Moore's Law being stupid, it would still be reasonable to say that we will have the means to create nanobots this century.
So.... yeah. Why even send marines to an enemy base when you can fly over it and drop a bomb or shoot a cruise missile with a nanobot payload that would wipe the entire thing out? People talk about neutron bombs for leaving industry intact well, nanobots ftw!