Future Weapons: ?Wait a minute, this is the future. Where are all the phaser guns?? ? Simon Phoenix

[Serioli]

With respect to Star Wars, as a military weapon it may be that the blasters are designed to injure. A corpse is 150 or so pounds of meat that needs to be disposed of. An injured person is 150 pounds of screaming morale drain that will need at least one person to remove them from the battlefield and further care afterwards. Less weapon power also means greater ammo capacity, I know the games have ammo counters but with respect to the films do blasters have 50 rounds, 500 or could they keep firing for a year non-stop?

You win a battle by stopping the other side fighting. Killing everyone is one way, scaring them into surrender is another and chewing up all their resources is another.

As an Empire I have a stupid amount of troops and an entire support network. Rebels will often be on technologically disadvantaged worlds, in hiding, having to find supplies and support through black market methods. Whether they end up being 'light' or 'dark' I strongly believe the Empire would win.

 

[Thaluikhain]

With respect to Star Wars, as a military weapon it may be that the blasters are designed to injure. A corpse is 150 or so pounds of meat that needs to be disposed of. An injured person is 150 pounds of screaming morale drain that will need at least one person to remove them from the battlefield and further care afterwards.

Doesn't work like that.

A landmine or booby trap out in the middle of the jungle? Sure, makes perfect sense there...because there's no immediate threat. You've got a lot more leeway.

But in an actual battle, you are trying to kill your opponents, because they are trying to kill you. You can't afford to muck about trying merely to wound people, you need to end the threat right now.

Now, you might occasionally try to wound, but giving your troops as their standard issue weapon something that won't reliably kill their opponent? Terrible idea.

 

[Serioli]

Doesn't work like that.

A landmine or booby trap out in the middle of the jungle? Sure, makes perfect sense there...because there's no immediate threat. You've got a lot more leeway.

But in an actual battle, you are trying to kill your opponents, because they are trying to kill you. You can't afford to muck about trying merely to wound people, you need to end the threat right now.

Now, you might occasionally try to wound, but giving your troops as their standard issue weapon something that won't reliably kill their opponent? Terrible idea.

You're thinking on an individual level. If I were a soldier on the ground I would absolutely agree.

I am not thinking as a soldier, I am thinking as a government and an evil one with a clone army to boot. I have superior numbers to counter those that die. I have advanced medicine with clone troops (and corpses) that can freely donate blood and organs to each other. While you wouldn't go so far as to train troops to injure, (Aim centre body on humans and similar), smaller/less powerful weapons that miss centre are more likely to incapacitate and injure rather than kill and lead to a situation I detailed above.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I am not thinking as a soldier, I am thinking as a government and an evil one with a clone army to boot. I have superior numbers to counter those that die. I have advanced medicine with clone troops (and corpses) that can freely donate blood and organs to each other. While you wouldn't go so far as to train troops to injure, (Aim centre body on humans and similar), smaller/less powerful weapons that miss centre are more likely to incapacitate and injure rather than kill and lead to a situation I detailed above.

Hmmm...alright, but then why not train to do that as well?

 

[Serioli]

Hmmm...alright, but then why not train to do that as well?

For the same reason you train to hit centre mass rather than going for a head shot, even on unarmoured opponents. There is a greater leeway if you are off-target. E.g. on my own skinny body* I have, (VERY approx), 7 inches left & right, greater leeway up & down. Compare that to 3 inches left and right, 5 1/2 inches up and great leeway down for centre head. Aiming for limbs would have even less leeway.


*Not including arms.

 

[Thaluikhain]

For the same reason you train to hit centre mass rather than going for a head shot, even on unarmoured opponents.

Fair enough.

Going back a bit, though, when has the Empire fought the rebels in such a way that the logistics of wounding made sense? They always seem (at least in the movies) to be out to outright crush their enemies as fast as possible. Exception of taking prisoners in the beginning of the first film, and letting them go again afterwards.

Unless the bureaucracy is very big and things like that get overlooked, I could well imagine that.

 

[BarkBarker]

I would just like to say that I despise the idea that in the future say 100 years from now they still use basic weaponry just buffed up rather than approach it logically with the advances in technology. Using bullets in the future? WHY would we still use bullets given 100 maybe even 1000 years of technological advancements? Better yet, why would I use a laser gun? Where are my rare materials from other planets that are volatile beyond comparison, why don't I have weapons that say even for a silly example have some introduction of ceasium which is wholesomely volatile when in contact with water, to the point it shatters a bathtub? I could just pop people and maybe buildings with some rock and spit, hows that for weaponry?! Where are my satellite weapons that destabilize the cores of planets and turn it into a molten fiery timebomb of death? Why can't I use this teleporter launcher to make his brain displace 5 feet away from him but not the rest of him? And how has science found ways to counter these weapons? Why do we see people get hit bit lasers once and die in a future where they have been around for centuries? What everbody was just having fun and forgot about defense? Please, use your imagination.

 

[Serioli]

Fair enough.

Going back a bit, though, when has the Empire fought the rebels in such a way that the logistics of wounding made sense? They always seem (at least in the movies) to be out to outright crush their enemies as fast as possible. Exception of taking prisoners in the beginning of the first film, and letting them go again afterwards.

Unless the bureaucracy is very big and things like that get overlooked, I could well imagine that.

Getting into areas of larger speculation about wider population now....

When the troops go in, they go in hard but from the perspective of achieving the target. They don't care if the rebels run, surrender or are killed. They only care that they took the objective in the way they want. If they don't need a sat array, destroy it heavy handed. Need an area that has troops? It's better to capture or drive off the opposition. An enemy that surrenders /runs after 50% casualties is a hell of a lot easier than an enemy that will fight to the death.

You can also look at longer term implications. Are you more likely to join the Rebellion knowing that uncle Bekten died gloriously for the cause, fighting the evil empire that kills people or knowing that uncle Bekten was hit in the shoulder, lied in agony until he was evacuated and lost his arm to infection. It took a few years to get a replacement arm during which time he split with your aunt and started using death sticks? It's been really hard on your mum and dad....

 

[Thaluikhain]

I would just like to say that I despise the idea that in the future say 100 years from now they still use basic weaponry just buffed up rather than approach it logically with the advances in technology. Using bullets in the future? WHY would we still use bullets given 100 maybe even 1000 years of technological advancements?

Because they work?

There are weapons dating from the WW1 that are in use today. The Colt 1911, the Browning Hi-Power, the Browning .50 Calibre Machine gun (and the .50BMG ammunition which is now NATO standard), the M1919 Browning (though it just missed the war), for example. And others not invented by JM Browning. People still are killed by knives all the time.

Now, sure, we are likely to see all sorts of weird weapons in the next 100 years. But firearms are unlikely to disappear.

Getting into areas of larger speculation about wider population now....

When the troops go in, they go in hard but from the perspective of achieving the target. They don't care if the rebels run, surrender or are killed. They only care that they took the objective in the way they want. If they don't need a sat array, destroy it heavy handed. Need an area that has troops? It's better to capture or drive off the opposition. An enemy that surrenders /runs after 50% casualties is a hell of a lot easier than an enemy that will fight to the death.

You can also look at longer term implications. Are you more likely to join the Rebellion knowing that uncle Bekten died gloriously for the cause, fighting the evil empire that kills people or knowing that uncle Bekten was hit in the shoulder, lied in agony until he was evacuated and lost his arm to infection. It took a few years to get a replacement arm during which time he split with your aunt and started using death sticks. It's been really hard on your mum and dad....

Again, doesn't seem to be how they work. Board a starship, don't let anyone out. Attack an ice planet, don't let anyone out. Set an ambush on a forest moon, don't let anyone out. Now, they tend not to get that part right, but it seems the idea was to totally eliminate all enemy forces.

Also, I'm not seeing any parallels with the real world. Been lots of nasty regimes with interesting ideas on how to fight, but nobody seems to have gone for trying to not kill the enemy in a battle.

 

[BarkBarker]

I would just like to say that I despise the idea that in the future say 100 years from now they still use basic weaponry just buffed up rather than approach it logically with the advances in technology. Using bullets in the future? WHY would we still use bullets given 100 maybe even 1000 years of technological advancements?

Because they work?

There are weapons dating from the WW1 that are in use today. The Colt 1911, the Browning Hi-Power, the Browning .50 Calibre Machine gun (and the .50BMG ammunition which is now NATO standard), the M1919 Browning (though it just missed the war), for example. And others not invented by JM Browning. People still are killed by knives all the time.

Now, sure, we are likely to see all sorts of weird weapons in the next 100 years. But firearms are unlikely to disappear.

Firearms? Yeah, sure why not. I have no problem with seeing someone firing a gun, I have a problem with the concept of a future where everything else has advanced and the weapons are still based upon bullet logic when they aren't appropriate anymore. This is more noticeable when they try using standard bullet weaponry on creatures that bullets are wholesomely useless at, piercing weaponry are not the end all of weaponry, they are good against flesh and the difference in flesh changes the power needs of a piercing based weapon to be effective. How SHARP would a knife have to become to cut through the armors of the future a millenia from now? Pretty fucking sharp, or it'd be useless, don't fix what ain't broken, but don't refuse the leaps and bounds of technology in a millenia to favour weapons that are primarily based around the creatures of the Earth and their current state. Guns came about as a superior weapon to swords, what comes after the guns in the future? How big and powerful a gun do I need to even stand a chance against a fucking starship in the lower atmosphere? a rocket launcher wouldn't cut it, you'd need something new, something wholesomely more powerful to equal the power and scale of the new weapons of war.

Efficiency in killing 20 men with a single shot of this sci-fi weapon over single target. Applications of the new technology to create new ways to fight rather than just keep going in ONE single skill tree. Why are we still having a shoot out in rooms when we should surely have ample access to weapons that could annihilate any biomass in a given space? And what about mechanical enemies? They have developed a counter to the EMP and weapons based around the destruction of a complex organism, what do we got against them now? giant simple organisms that bullets do fuck all to, you find a new weapon or maybe you try something else, the classic insect like alien while cliche brings up the point that our guns are for killing complex life forms that cease to function should damage to be taken, loads of sci-fi movies often have people unloading endless amounts of bullets trying to kill a creature that LAUGHS at bullets, where is my weapon that focuses primarily on blunt kinect force, I can't pierce it but I can sure smash its skull in from the outside.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I disagree that Jedi can not block bullets, as seen in the prequels they can move very fast, IE blurry, simply apply that to their blocking capability and they can move fast enough to block and dodge income bullets.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I disagree that Jedi can not block bullets, as seen in the prequels they can move very fast, IE blurry, simply apply that to their blocking capability and they can move fast enough to block and dodge income bullets.

How fast is "very fast", though? Just because someone can move "very fast" doesn't automatically mean they are fast enough.

A 5.56mm bullet can travel at more than 900m/s. So, at 100m range, they have 0.1 seconds (rounding down) before the bullet reaches them. To see the bullet, recognise it (5.56mm across and less than 25mm long at 100m) as a threat, determine where it's going and where the lightsabre has to be to block it.

If they could move anywhere near that fast, you'd not be able to see a lightsabre fight at all.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I disagree that Jedi can not block bullets, as seen in the prequels they can move very fast, IE blurry, simply apply that to their blocking capability and they can move fast enough to block and dodge income bullets.

How fast is "very fast", though? Just because someone can move "very fast" doesn't automatically mean they are fast enough.

A 5.56mm bullet can travel at more than 900m/s. So, at 100m range, they have 0.1 seconds (rounding down) before the bullet reaches them. To see the bullet, recognise it (5.56mm across and less than 25mm long at 100m) as a threat, determine where it's going and where the lightsabre has to be to block it.

If they could move anywhere near that fast, you'd not be able to see a lightsabre fight at all.

If its blurry to the human eye, its fast enough to upgrade the fiction to be able to block bullets. You also forget the precognitive ability of force uses who basically should be able see the projectory of the bullets as well, add speed you can block all kinds of things. They do not use it in the fiction because they do not have to but if push came to shove it could be easily done IMO.


TLR: Anime

 

[Iron_will]

I would just like to say that I despise the idea that in the future say 100 years from now they still use basic weaponry just buffed up rather than approach it logically with the advances in technology.

"Basic weapon just buffed up" is quite logical.

Using bullets in the future? WHY would we still use bullets given 100 maybe even 1000 years of technological advancements?

If we still use them in the next millennia, it would be because they still work. If they became ineffective, we wouldn't use them anymore.

Better yet, why would I use a laser gun? Where are my rare materials from other planets that are volatile beyond comparison, why don't I have weapons that say even for a silly example have some introduction of ceasium which is wholesomely volatile when in contact with water, to the point it shatters a bathtub? I could just pop people and maybe buildings with some rock and spit, hows that for weaponry?!

That just sounds like a typical bomb.

Where are my satellite weapons that destabilize the cores of planets and turn it into a molten fiery timebomb of death?

Sometimes, you don't want to destroy an entire planet.
I'm honestly more partial to relativistic kill projectiles myself (especially the 95%+ lightspeed range).
The energy required for them clearly means I would need have the appropriate technology to utilize that energy.
If it was easy to make it would be an incredibly effective terror weapon.

Why can't I use this teleporter launcher to make his brain displace 5 feet away from him but not the rest of him? And how has science found ways to counter these weapons?

What's the point of that? You might as well just use a gun if you're intent is to kill.

Why do we see people get hit bit lasers once and die in a future where they have been around for centuries?

Because they're that effective. Or their armor isn't quite up to standard.

It's actually quite fun deducing the reasons something is (like the weaponry and stuff we're talking about) the way it is in fiction. Unless it's plothole, inconsistency, or something.

I disagree that Jedi can not block bullets, as seen in the prequels they can move very fast, IE blurry, simply apply that to their blocking capability and they can move fast enough to block and dodge income bullets.

How fast is "very fast", though? Just because someone can move "very fast" doesn't automatically mean they are fast enough.

A 5.56mm bullet can travel at more than 900m/s. So, at 100m range, they have 0.1 seconds (rounding down) before the bullet reaches them. To see the bullet, recognise it (5.56mm across and less than 25mm long at 100m) as a threat, determine where it's going and where the lightsabre has to be to block it.

If they could move anywhere near that fast, you'd not be able to see a lightsabre fight at all.

If its blurry to the human eye, its fast enough to upgrade the fiction to be able to block bullets. You also forget the precognitive ability of force uses who basically should be able see the projectory of the bullets as well, add speed you can block all kinds of things. They do not use it in the fiction because they do not have to but if push came to shove it could be easily done IMO.


TLR: Anime

They do not use it in the fiction because they do not have to but if push came to shove it could be easily done IMO.

Err, you shouldn't assume that.
Have they demonstrated reaction and movement speeds needed for blocking a bullet? And if they haven't, you really shouldn't assume they can do it.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I disagree that Jedi can not block bullets, as seen in the prequels they can move very fast, IE blurry, simply apply that to their blocking capability and they can move fast enough to block and dodge income bullets.

How fast is "very fast", though? Just because someone can move "very fast" doesn't automatically mean they are fast enough.

A 5.56mm bullet can travel at more than 900m/s. So, at 100m range, they have 0.1 seconds (rounding down) before the bullet reaches them. To see the bullet, recognise it (5.56mm across and less than 25mm long at 100m) as a threat, determine where it's going and where the lightsabre has to be to block it.

If they could move anywhere near that fast, you'd not be able to see a lightsabre fight at all.

If its blurry to the human eye, its fast enough to upgrade the fiction to be able to block bullets. You also forget the precognitive ability of force uses who basically should be able see the projectory of the bullets as well, add speed you can block all kinds of things. They do not use it in the fiction because they do not have to but if push came to shove it could be easily done IMO.


TLR: Anime

They do not use it in the fiction because they do not have to but if push came to shove it could be easily done IMO.

Err, you shouldn't assume that.
Have they demonstrated reaction and movement speeds needed for blocking a bullet? And if they haven't, you really shouldn't assume they can do it.

Looking at Clone wars and Unleashed the standard fiction has room to grow, so I would expect if they updated the lazes/weapons whatever to bullet speeds force uses would implement bullet time or faster than sound movement along with sensing trajectories. So meh saying it can not be done is rather short sighted and over limiting. The reason its not done has more to do with tradition, visual effects and the medium of fiction its focused upon more than "fictional super human characters can not block bullets because I said so" mindsets.


If you incorporate it into the fiction then the fiction will change like a snow ball rolling down a hill and will mostly balance itself out or stagnate into worthless drool.

 

[Iron_will]

Spoiler

I disagree that Jedi can not block bullets, as seen in the prequels they can move very fast, IE blurry, simply apply that to their blocking capability and they can move fast enough to block and dodge income bullets.

How fast is "very fast", though? Just because someone can move "very fast" doesn't automatically mean they are fast enough.

A 5.56mm bullet can travel at more than 900m/s. So, at 100m range, they have 0.1 seconds (rounding down) before the bullet reaches them. To see the bullet, recognise it (5.56mm across and less than 25mm long at 100m) as a threat, determine where it's going and where the lightsabre has to be to block it.

If they could move anywhere near that fast, you'd not be able to see a lightsabre fight at all.

If its blurry to the human eye, its fast enough to upgrade the fiction to be able to block bullets. You also forget the precognitive ability of force uses who basically should be able see the projectory of the bullets as well, add speed you can block all kinds of things. They do not use it in the fiction because they do not have to but if push came to shove it could be easily done IMO.


TLR: Anime

They do not use it in the fiction because they do not have to but if push came to shove it could be easily done IMO.

Err, you shouldn't assume that.
Have they demonstrated reaction and movement speeds needed for blocking a bullet? And if they haven't, you really shouldn't assume they can do it.

Looking at Clone wars and Unleashed the standard fiction has room to grow, so I would expect if they updated the lazes/weapons whatever to bullet speeds force uses would implement bullet time or faster than sound movement along with sensing trajectories. So meh saying it can not be done is rather short sighted and over limiting. The reason its not done has more to do with tradition, visual effects and the medium of fiction its focused upon more than "fictional super human characters can not block bullets because I said so" mindsets.


If you incorporate it into the fiction then the fiction will change like a snow ball rolling down a hill and will mostly balance itself out or stagnate into worthless drool.

Thing is, they haven't shown they're capable of that.
What you're describing actually sounds like a retcon of their abilities.

I'm not saying that they definitely can't, it's that they haven't displayed such capabilities so we can't assume they can, at least in the movie canon.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

Okay, if you've ever got time to waste, and feel like it please let me know. I'm terrible at the math part of physics, so there's a lot of stuff I can't figure on my own.

I am not too terribly good at physics math myself, but knowing a few of the basics really helps you apply those principles to other systems and environments. Chaotic electron re-absorption is easiest to understand using the basic "Three-body Problem" or "n-body Problem," which almost goes all the way back to the Greeks.

Basically, once you get three or more gravitational bodies present in a system, they behave chaotically, and their patterns only rarely repeat, even though they are still following the laws of physics. Josef Lagrange and later Ponciare proved that the movements could be predicted if one of those bodies only had nominal gravity compared to the other two. This is why the Earth-Sun-Moon system is not chaotic, because the moon is only of nominal gravity compared to the sun. But systems with three or more roughly equal gravities are what lead to the formation of Chaos Theory.

Oddly much the same chaotic system rears its head in particle physics and quantum theory as well. For the case of plasma, when we say "plasma" we are usually referring to the nuclei, as the electrons become fluid and it is nearly impossible to tell where they are at any given point, due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty. Thus, the "core" of the plasma usually gains a positive charge as it sheds these fluid electrons. As soon as the plasma begins to lose energy though, electrons are either pulled back into the nuclei from the fluid field, or are pulled from the surrounding atmosphere. Now, you have positive plasma, a negative electron field, and newly ionized gasses from the surrounding atmosphere, all playing against one another. Or, what can be described as a three-body problem, effected by electromagnetism instead of gravity.

This model does not even mention the thousands of other variables, such as changes in air density and charge. Basically, all the elements will follow their own laws of physics, but there are so many variables that the magnitude of the complexity makes it impossible to predict in advance. Using standard models, one might be able to tell why a beam of plasma veered off one way or another after the fact, but the variables before hand are just too complex and change widely by the fraction of a second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem

Sorry, there is some scary math there on the wiki, but just ignore it for now and read the article, it does a good job of explaining things verbally.

 

[DefunctTheory]

I think the laser weapons from Warhammer 40K did somewhat solve the "if they aren't better, why bother?" problem a bit. They're not that much better than ordinary firearms, but the batteries can be recharged when they are drained. It's probably a bit more economic than to supply vast hordes of conscripts with real rounds that must be transported and accounted for.

Lasguns, like much of Warhammer 40K, are a bit inconsistent. They range from 'a bit better then firearms' to 'can blow of limbs with glancing shots.' Either one is moot, however, since the poor guardsman are basically fighting the culmination of 20 thousand years of human nightmares, brought to life by magic, impossibly ancient aliens, or your beast friend who's now wearing your guts as a fancy hat. At that point, it hardly matters.

For the Imperium!

It is interesting because there was a phase where we stopped believing in energy weapons. That's why they use projectile firearms in Aliens, Total Recall etc, it was more believable that we'd never figure out energy weapons at all. Now that we're getting closer to a future where hand held energy weapons become available, that should change.

They stopped using them because they have very little impact and are visually uninteresting. Projectile weapons buck around, they make a fuck ton of noise, fire flash and smoke spew everywhere, stuff explodes and sprays blood everywhere - it creates chaos and things that have clear, visual impact.

Beam weapons are, for the most part, displayed as point and shoot. Its boring. And its also (Or at least it used to be) more expensive to do then just piecing together a blank gun, a bunch of molded plastic for the future look, and a bunch of squibs on what you want to shoot.

I do not know much about Twilight but Harry Potter is easy. Firstly; the Harry Potter series takes place almost entirely in the UK where firearms are pretty rare. Secondly; the magic that they use in Harry Potter makes firearms obsolete. Keep in mind that the "shouting incantations" bit is for students and focus on what the teachers and Aurors can do. They have a stick that can kill twelve people in a single shot (Pettigrew), take over someone's mind (Voldemort, Harry Potter others), transfigure things (anybody), destroy entire bridges (Deather Eaters), alter weather (also Death Eaters), shield themselves and others (Dumbledore), the list goes on and on. Then they have invisible allies that suck the soul out of you and can't be defeated through mundane means. Why would anyone in the Wizarding world use a gun? Comedic relief? There's also a theory that since most Wizards weren't even aware of guns, that Wizard blood made you immune to normal injuries. After all, I am pretty sure that most of us are aware of anything that can kill us, so for something to be completely off the radar, it would have to be really harmless.

Actually, guns are rated above wands in the Harry Potter verse, and its hinted pretty heavily that the wizarding world, for all of its neat tricks, is of virtually no danger to the muggles around them. The wizards displayed in the book are sometimes an exception, but they represent the cream of the crop, and even they would be pretty much helpless in the presence of competent muggle soldiers.

As for the original topic... I'm always partial to magnetics.