Thread: Weapons of tomorrow
11-13-2005, 08:15 AM #1
Weapons of tomorrow
What kind of weapons do you think we will se in the near future?
Ordinary bullet weapons have been around for so long now. I dont think many more improvements can be made??
One thing I could imagine is having a barrel that injects gas that gets ignited behind the bullet to increase the muzzle(sp??) speed. But it would probably be hell to get it to work right. Some rifles done that way could get awsome power thats for sure.
What would be interesting is a true gauss weapon. Metal slugs propelled by electromagnetic fields. But someone would have to figure out a way to make a super battery or a portable but very efficient generator.
When it comes to wmd's one thing I could imagine the future holds is fusion boms that can be ignited without the fission device. That would mean a very clean h-bomb. But it would be a dangerous weapon since the consequenses of using one wouldnt be as bad as nuclear weapons of today(no fallout). Maby world leaders wouldnt hesitate as much before pushing the red button.
What kind of weapons do you envision?
11-13-2005, 08:38 AM #2
I think there is a world wide ethical code to some extent to prevent any more crazy chem/bio weapons from being created. I think the most developments we will see over the next few years will be in the air and space field. I watched a documentary on a concept plane that kind of skipped across the atmosphere from space similar to a stone across water. A manned craft capable of carrying weapons and entering space imo is next.
11-13-2005, 08:54 AM #3
yeah they defenetly need to stop with bio weapons. The world sure as hell doesnt need new diseases.
a more futuristic scenario would be if any country gets a advantage of a moon. All they would have to do is build something that can hurl large rocks at the earth and that would be a extremely powerfull weapon.
I wonder if any nation has any satelite weapons platforms right now. Nukes in orbit would be a good deterant that is for sure.
11-13-2005, 09:40 AM #4Originally Posted by johan
I don't know that a moon base would be cost effective since it would hopefully never be used, but I think engineering and building a functional, possibly manned structure in an alien environment would be another giant leap for man kind.
I don't think any nation has balistic missiles in space. The US has been talking about deploying a missile defense in space for a while. Offensive missiles in space could be applied to the defensive technology with relative ease, which has many nations up in a twist. Here is a article to read in regards to that.
11-13-2005, 09:52 AM #5
As a weapons platform alone the moon would be to expensive. But there is alot of other advantages to the moon. The moon surface holds oxygen and everything else needed both to live and build things there. Except water(might be water there though but not found yet).
If one single country gets a base there without any other nation doing it I would bet they would put weapons up there. The rock thrower would be easily built. No one could disable those weapons(satelites I guess would be more easily taken out) so it would be the ultimate deterant. Fortunaly not only NASA is planing on going to the moon again. They will have ESA chasing them
I think it was Heinlein that wrote a book about the Moon revolting and using such a rock thrower as a weapon against earth.
I would wish though that space remains unarmed.
Interesting article. Seems like quite a task to hit a ICBM from a satelite. The accuracy would have to be totaly insane especialy at those speeds.
11-13-2005, 09:56 AM #6
When it comes to hand held weapons. A gauss rifle or a rifle with the gas propulsion I suggested would penetrate anything I recon. The range would be insane.
The biggest advantage with a gauss gun would be the size of the slugs. Very small slugs could be used but with the tremendous speed they would have awsome kinetic energy while giving almost no recoil. Aslong as(this beeing the tricky thing) a energysource is found the magasine for such a thing could hold hundrad of rounds easily.
11-13-2005, 11:35 AM #7Originally Posted by johan
You are right, it is like hitting a bullet with a bullet. Have you heard of the patriot missile? It is a successful missile defense currently in use by the US, the military claims a success rate as high as 80%. Before the patriots were NIKE missiles in the 70's which worked on a similar principal, I actually have an old NIKE missile base one town over from me that you can go walk aroud on. But my point is that the technology already exists, it just needs to be applied to the physics of a space launched projectile.
11-13-2005, 11:40 AM #8Originally Posted by johan
A very cool concept. To make sure I'm undertstanding you correctly, are you suggesting we replace solid fuel "gun powder" with liquid or gas fuel?
11-13-2005, 11:59 AM #9Originally Posted by BeerBaron
But when it comes to carries and other big ships. Cant they shoot down missiles with the gattling guns?
Originally Posted by BeerBaron
Think of the above lines as the inside of a barrel and each space betwen the lines as holes. When you fire the rifle simultaniously pump a combustable gas through the holes so they get ignited just behind the bullet. That will make the bullet accelerate all through the barrel.
The bullet itself could still be shot with gun powder I recon.
If this idea can be put to use I dont know. It would be hard to pump the gas in fast enough and make sure it ignites.
But your idea of having only gas would also be cool. Igniting a gas would make it expand all through the barrel aswell pushing the bullet far better than a single gun powder blast.
11-13-2005, 12:00 PM #10
the gauss gun would be something completely different. It would use a magnetic field to accelerate the slug out through the barrel. Kind of like a maglev train.
11-13-2005, 01:13 PM #11
11-13-2005, 01:19 PM #12
thats a nice piece of technology right there. No breakthrough weapons syste on it though but that machinegun can probably mov down most things
11-13-2005, 01:20 PM #13
israel should buy swedish subs instead. We have better subs than germany.
11-13-2005, 01:33 PM #14Originally Posted by AIZ
11-13-2005, 02:11 PM #15Originally Posted by BeerBaron
11-13-2005, 02:37 PM #16Originally Posted by AIZ
haha yeah i was being facetious.
11-13-2005, 02:40 PM #17
sticks and rocks
11-13-2005, 03:16 PM #18Originally Posted by BeerBaron
11-13-2005, 03:26 PM #19
I like some of the new non-lethal weapons they are coming out with...
The sonic weapon used in the recent pirate attack on a cruise ship near somalia was pretty cool...
11-14-2005, 12:48 PM #20
Red do you know any site about non lethal weapons in development??
11-15-2005, 01:52 AM #21
11-15-2005, 01:55 AM #22
What do you think of this kind of weapon that John Kerry mentions?
John Kerry's World of Hurt
The Senator Would Zap Iraqis (or WTO Protesters) with Futuristic Pain Beams
By JACOB LEVICH
Senator John Kerry's vision of "winning the peace" in Iraq and elsewhere involves the use of futuristic microwave beam weapons designed to inflict agonizing pain on unruly civilians, a recent campaign document reveals.
The document, a fact sheet released in support of Kerry's June 3 speech on military issues, endorses the development and use of "new, non-lethal technologies" including "directed energy weapons that can produce lethal and non-lethal effects."
Described by Time Magazine as a "cross between a microwave oven and a Star Trek phaser," a directed energy weapon fires an invisible beam of energy that flash-heats human targets from a distance. The beams do not burn flesh, but they create an unbearably painful burning sensation by instantaneously heating moisture under the skin.
A working directed energy weapon, Raytheon Corp.'s Active Denial System, will be delivered to the military for testing this fall. Raytheon volunteers who experienced the weapon's effect have described it as unbearably painful, saying they felt as though their bodies were on fire.
Although the weapon may have battlefield uses, it appears to be designed primarily for incapacitating civilian rioters or protesters. Air Force documents cited by the Sacramento Bee praise the beam weapon's "capability in military operations other than war," including peacekeeping, humanitarian operations and crowd control.
Significantly, Sen. Kerry envisions use of these weapons in "stability operations" aimed at "winning the peace." Army Field Manuals define stability operations as "applications of military power intended to influence the political environment, facilitate diplomacy, and interrupt specific illegal activities" in foreign countries.
In plain language, stability operations are quasi-military endeavors aimed at installing or supporting regimes favorable to US interests, typically in so-called "failed states." With the passage of a UN resolution endorsing Iraq's new handpicked government, the 160,000 foreign troops in Iraq are now said to be conducting stability operations.
US military officials have implied that directed energy weapons would be welcome in Iraq. Interviewed by the Bee, Marine Capt. Dan McSweeney, a spokesman for the Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, justified the weapons by pointing to "instances in Iraq where crowd situations have unfortunately ended in violence and death."
All this raises the disturbing possibility that Senator Kerry envisions using the high-tech weapons as a means of dispersing public protests in Iraq and other countries subject to US occupations or "peacekeeping missions."
In his June 3 speech, Kerry claimed directed energy weapons could "incapacitate the enemy, without risking the lives of innocent bystanders." But research cited by Bradford University's Non-Lethal Weapons Project indicates that the microwaves might cause cataracts and cancer; used at close range the weapon could "cook a person's eyeballs." Needless to say, the microwave beam is incapable of distinguishing between enemies and innocent bystanders.
Kerry has not discussed using microwave weapons against domestic dissenters, but a sales presentation available on Raytheon's web site specifically touts the Active Denial System as one of its Homeland Security products designed to "protect our citizens, property, infrastructure and cyberspace."
Because directed energy weapons inflict intense pain without leaving marks or other physical evidence, human rights activists are also concerned about their potential use as a torture devices, particularly in the wake of the Abu Ghraib prison scandals. Kerry, like President Bush, has said he opposes torture.
Note: As of this writing, the Kerry campaign fact sheet is available online at www.johnkerry.com/; the Raytheon presentation can be found at www.raytheon.com/ .
11-15-2005, 05:00 AM #23
If they can make that raygun safe I wouldnt mind seeing it used as crowd controll.
11-15-2005, 05:43 AM #24
How about EMP bombs.
EMP bombs are frightening because they are cheap, low-tech, and would create a "blackout" zone of 500-2000 meters' radius. If you are in that zone, say goodbye to not only electrical power, radios, TV and most of your appliances, but all the data on your hard drive, floppy disks, cassette and VCR tapes and custom-recorded CDs.
Even a single EMP bomb detonation in a car parked outside a major broadcast studio would do major damage. The car would be totaled, and the studio would be off-the-air. A detonation near a military base would take the base out in one stroke, as well as cause an immediate "red alert" in the Department of Defense.
11-15-2005, 06:13 AM #25
I dont think they are that cheap and low tech. If they where terrorist would be using them right now. A few EMP bombs on wall street could hurt the economy in a very disastrous way if they can get through to the protected servers and data banks.
11-15-2005, 06:47 AM #26Originally Posted by johan
I know that a nuclear explosion does have an EMP, but have they developed an EMP with out a nuclear explosion?
If so, I agree with Caus that could be devastating.
11-15-2005, 06:52 AM #27
An electromagnetic bomb or E-bomb is a weapon designed to disable electronics on a wide scale with an electromagnetic pulse. The Electromagnetic pulse was first observed through high altitude nuclear explosions. An electromatic pulse last for less than a nanosecond, and travels outward in every direction as an electromagnetic shock wave.
They are still mostly classified devices and research surrounding them is highly secretive. It is generally thought that E-bombs use explosively pumped flux compression generator technology as their power source.
I belive Western countries really dont want to develop it or release it, because if that technology is transfered to others, it would hurt the Western the most.
11-15-2005, 10:03 AM #28
Reliable, powerfull EMP weapons would realy change alot of things. With enough of them someone could knock out a entire country without directly killing anyone(offcourse loss of power and comunication would result in alot of deaths).
11-16-2005, 02:07 PM #29
Naked pictures of militia-guy could be deadly or at least blinding
11-16-2005, 02:26 PM #30
Covert weapons. Lasers, etc to cause earthquakes, etc. Wouldn't surprise me if the US could harvest the power of meteor strike.
11-16-2005, 02:36 PM #31
11-16-2005, 02:40 PM #32
by the way on my navy days i used to work on these missile ships al least 15 times! they are so powerfull.
Last edited by wrx; 11-16-2005 at 02:43 PM.
11-16-2005, 05:40 PM #33
please everyone come back tomorrow evening where I will post how to make an EMP bomb with an old microwave and some tape!
11-17-2005, 02:48 AM #34
Hope Theres No Palestinians Here
11-17-2005, 04:37 AM #35Originally Posted by Money Boss Hustla
Dropping meteors would be a sinister weapons because no one could prove it was the usa that did it. The technology to do such a thing exist already. All that is needed is to put a few small rockets on a meteorite with a close to earth orbite and give it a gentle push.
Or put a focusing mirror in orbit around it and focus sunlight on it. When the meteorite surface gets heated the surface will evaporate and that will act as a weak rocket.
11-17-2005, 04:41 AM #36Originally Posted by wrx
that is a sweet looking corvette
11-17-2005, 04:49 AM #37Originally Posted by wrx
why do you say that?? We have no palestinians here no but several muslims mebers that are strong palestinian supporters.
11-17-2005, 04:52 AM #38
11-17-2005, 05:00 AM #39
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)