Log in

View Full Version : Arsenal of the future



ÑóẊîöʼn
18th May 2005, 06:51
After a recent debate, I have come to the conclusion that A) As technology develops, more and more powerful weapons are developed as a result. This unfortunately seems inevitable, B) By the time feasable weaponry becomes significantly more lethal than those of today, communism (If Marx was right) will be the principal but not exclusive social structure of humanity, leading to my final conclusion, that there will always be enemies of communism, and that such enemies need to be fought with the best available weapons, meaning that weapons research will be a necessary evil.

So, what are our options? Here are some possible future developments:

Disruption Weaponry

These weapons fire beams of particles that disrupt subatomic bonds. Really advanced and powerful versions could disassociate targets to the Planck level, effectively phasing them out of existance.

Plasma Weapons

Plasma is a very hot and fluid type of matter; It is the state of matter that the Sun is in. It can be magnetically contained, meaning it can be conveyed along a gun barrel.
It can be many thousands of degrees in temperature, causing nearby objects to burst into flames with the sheer heat. This can have a great psychological influence, as it is quite disturbing to see one half of a fellow squad be instantly incinerated to ash, and the other half spontaneously combust.

Disruptive Shields

Both a defensive and offensive technology, Disruption Shields form a magnetically controlled bubble of disintergrator particles around a unit, destroying projectiles and damaging approaching units.

Lasers

You know what these are. we already have industrial lasers, so imagine them beefed up and scaled down to infantry rifle size. You've got yourself a potent point defense system and anti-missile weapon.

Mazers

As above, but with microwaves. Probably good for cooking enemy infantry.

X-Ray Lasers

Another variety, this time mounted in a missile and 'pumped' power by a nuclear bomb.
Most likely to be a starship weapon.

Nano-Disassemblers

While I'm personally skeptical about nanotech claims, this could be feasable with an appropiate delivery system; tiny little robots (Obviously) that converts any solid matter that emits a specified amount of heat into fuel and copies of itself. Should be treated as a biological weapon, but can threaten vehicles also.

Von Neumann Machines ('Autowars')

Like the above, but this time macro-scaled machines devour local matter (non-offensively) in order to self-replicate, attacking enemies while doing so.
Enemies who are slow in eliminating this threat will have a literally growing problem on their hands.

Lightning Gun

This weapon builds a massive negative charge while simultaneously building up a greater amount of positive charge on the target, resulting in a massive electric disharge. Good 'shock weapon' Because of the bright light and loud noise.

Tesla Coil

Most of you should know what this is. If you don't, google it. With a suffeciently powerful and compact energy supply, this would be a useful tactical level 'area-denial' weapon.
More humane that mines because they eventually run out energy and are more noticable.

Gravity Weapons

That's right, and it's more sophisticated than dropping rocks on your enemies (More on that later) If you can manipulate space-time, then surely, gravity being a curvature in aforementioned, you can manipulate it so that gravity is very high in a local area.
This weapon has surprisingly limited application. Without a doubt this is a weapon of last resort, as it can crush planets into singularities and cause stars (Of any type!) to go supernova.

Sonic Weapons

Not talking about the neighbour who won't turn his music down, but using soundwaves offensively. Causes organ rupture in infantry and will crack armoured vehicles if powerful enough.

'Gridfire'

Imagine a dimension full of violent, destructive energy. Imagine being able to open a portal of any desired size to this dimension, anywhere you want (right on top of an enemy).
That is Gridfire.

Wormhole Weapons

As with Gridfire, except it takes things away. You can hoover up entire enemy fleets with them, eat a planet up from the inside, or slowly suck the life from an enemy star.

Electromagnetic Pulse (Electronic Warfare)

Besides occuring as side effects of the atmospheric use of nuclear weapons, EMP has a utility of it's own; even today, Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) is in active service.

Neutron Weapons

Particle Accelerators turned weapons. Can be directed unlike neutron bombs, is very effective against biological assets, and can disrupt electronics too.

Railguns

Enjoying a current popularity in fiction, so there's a good chance you may have heard of them. Uses twin electromagnetic rails to propel a projectile at hypervelocities to a target.

Coilguns

Similar to above, but projectile does not contact coils so there is no wear & tear.
Would be suitable as space-based weapons for firing anti-matter.

Parabolic Mirrors

Focuses the sun's rays onto a target, frying it. Mirror will need to be at least a thousand km in diameter.

Anti-Matter Bombs

Think nukes on steroids that are 'clean' apart from an initial burst of gamma rays.
Wonder.

Artificial Lifeforms

An area denial weapon. The prospect of facing a tough, strong, smart species that insidiously reproduces via invisible spores and is downright scary-looking is pants-pissingly terrfying. Make them capable of interstellar travel for greater gribbly effect.
Or you could create a soldier race.

Mass Drivers

Similar to Coilguns, but instead these fire kilometer-wide asteroids at planets.
Highly devastating.

Relativistic Gravel

Fragments of asteroid accelerated to near-lightspeed at a target - without FTL communication systems, defence against a Relativistic Gravel attack is impossible.
Even more hurtful than mass drivers.

That's about all I could think of right now.
Thoughts?

ÑóẊîöʼn
18th May 2005, 07:17
Damn! I forgot one!

Nuclear Bullets

Certain artificial transuranic elements go critical at very small masses. Some element's critical mass could be bullet-sized. Such an element would be used as ammunition for the Fission Gun. The ammunition is a standard cartridge, with a special slug. This slug is divided into two subcritical masses of an isotope, seperated by a micron-thick sliver of aluminium foil. When the round is fired and hits a target, the subcritical masses combine, resulting in a nuclear explosion.

Elect Marx
18th May 2005, 10:40
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 11:51 PM
I have come to the conclusion that A) As technology develops, more and more powerful weapons are developed as a result. This unfortunately seems inevitable,
Couldn't we avoid or sabotage technological developments that are probable producers of powerful weapons (likely to be used for ruling class benefit and working class suppression) though?


B) By the time feasable weaponry becomes significantly more lethal than those of today, communism (If Marx was right) will be the principal but not exclusive social structure of humanity,

Where/how did Marx state this and how does it pertain to super-tech?
Obviously technology exists to annihilate us all MANY times over; so what is to stop far more powerful technology from developing under capitalism?


leading to my final conclusion, that there will always be enemies of communism,

How does that lead to you final conclusion? I do see no reason to believe a communist society would always have "enemies."


and that such enemies need to be fought with the best available weapons, meaning that weapons research will be a necessary evil.

Assuming these enemies exist and must be forcibly suppressed; wouldn’t a knife do the job, if needed? Why would they have significant force? If they have authority this wouldn't be communism. Technology that protects people would seem to be much better than weapons.


So, what are our options? Here are some possible future developments:

Interesting... I hope this turns out to be a good debate. Out of curiosity: how many of these weapons are known to be constructible?


Disruption Weaponry

So this could basically destroy any matter? Sounds useful for imperialists.


Plasma Weapons

Sounds good for killing people in mass.


Disruptive Shields

Both a defensive and offensive technology, Disruption Shields form a magnetically controlled bubble of disintergrator particles around a unit, destroying projectiles and damaging approaching units.

What exactly is a "disintegrator particle?" This would be great for safeguarding ruling class wealth.


Lasers

You know what these are. we already have industrial lasers, so imagine them beefed up and scaled down to infantry rifle size. You've got yourself a potent point defense system and anti-missile weapon.

...or you could have an automated grid to burn anyone that refuses to be a wage-slave.


Mazers

As above, but with microwaves. Probably good for cooking enemy infantry.

…or to aid an occupying force attempting to colonize someone's home.


X-Ray Lasers

Another variety, this time mounted in a missile and 'pumped' power by a nuclear bomb.
Most likely to be a starship weapon.

Sounds super for interstellar conquest.


Nano-Disassemblers

While I'm personally skeptical about nanotech claims, this could be feasable with an appropiate delivery system; tiny little robots (Obviously) that converts any solid matter that emits a specified amount of heat into fuel and copies of itself. Should be treated as a biological weapon, but can threaten vehicles also.

Basically something resembling a virus that can destroy anything it is programed to and capable of dismantling.


Von Neumann Machines ('Autowars')

Like the above, but this time macro-scaled machines devour local matter (non-offensively) in order to self-replicate, attacking enemies while doing so.
Enemies who are slow in eliminating this threat will have a literally growing problem on their hands.

This would be a great way to exterminate dissidents.


Lightning Gun

This weapon builds a massive negative charge while simultaneously building up a greater amount of positive charge on the target, resulting in a massive electric disharge. Good 'shock weapon' Because of the bright light and loud noise.

How is the target aimed at? Tacticaly, this would work well to kill those hiding behind armor (esp conductive).


Tesla Coil

Most of you should know what this is. If you don't, google it. With a suffeciently powerful and compact energy supply, this would be a useful tactical level 'area-denial' weapon.
More humane that mines because they eventually run out energy and are more noticable.

The point of mines is that they are hard to detect; so how would you hide this?
This one would also help an invading force.


Gravity Weapons

That's right, and it's more sophisticated than dropping rocks on your enemies (More on that later) If you can manipulate space-time, then surely, gravity being a curvature in aforementioned, you can manipulate it so that gravity is very high in a local area.
This weapon has surprisingly limited application. Without a doubt this is a weapon of last resort, as it can crush planets into singularities and cause stars (Of any type!) to go supernova.

Why limited? You could certainly make gravity "waves" with such technology and this could rip people apart, as well as anything else.


Sonic Weapons

Not talking about the neighbour who won't turn his music down, but using soundwaves offensively. Causes organ rupture in infantry and will crack armoured vehicles if powerful enough.

Yeah, actually sound weapons are developing that make you sick to your stomach.


'Gridfire'

Imagine a dimension full of violent, destructive energy. Imagine being able to open a portal of any desired size to this dimension, anywhere you want (right on top of an enemy).
That is Gridfire.

Yes, basically the ability to destroy anything... Why do we want this around now?


Wormhole Weapons

As with Gridfire, except it takes things away. You can hoover up entire enemy fleets with them, eat a planet up from the inside, or slowly suck the life from an enemy star.

Small potatoes... you could exterminate them by using million degree star plasma on whatever or rip them apart with the pull of a black hole.


Electromagnetic Pulse (Electronic Warfare)

Besides occuring as side effects of the atmospheric use of nuclear weapons, EMP has a utility of it's own; even today, Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) is in active service.

This one could actually have very productive applications.


Neutron Weapons

Particle Accelerators turned weapons. Can be directed unlike neutron bombs, is very effective against biological assets, and can disrupt electronics too.

Good for killing and destroying...


Railguns

Enjoying a current popularity in fiction, so there's a good chance you may have heard of them. Uses twin electromagnetic rails to propel a projectile at hypervelocities to a target.

Very powerful by current weapon standards and has useful technological implications but as a weapon; would be able to kill quite efficiently.


Coilguns

Similar to above, but projectile does not contact coils so there is no wear & tear.
Would be suitable as space-based weapons for firing anti-matter.

This is where I see super-tech starting to become massively destructive.


Parabolic Mirrors

Focuses the sun's rays onto a target, frying it. Mirror will need to be at least a thousand km in diameter.

We could roast cities like anthills!



Anti-Matter Bombs

Think nukes on steroids that are 'clean' apart from an initial burst of gamma rays.
Wonder.

BOOM! Whatever was, is no more.


Artificial Lifeforms

An area denial weapon. The prospect of facing a tough, strong, smart species that insidiously reproduces via invisible spores and is downright scary-looking is pants-pissingly terrfying. Make them capable of interstellar travel for greater gribbly effect.
Or you could create a soldier race.

The ultimate in imperialism!


Mass Drivers

Similar to Coilguns, but instead these fire kilometer-wide asteroids at planets.
Highly devastating.

Yeah, it could destroy a planet; like an unimaginably powerful nuke.


Relativistic Gravel

Fragments of asteroid accelerated to near-lightspeed at a target - without FTL communication systems, defence against a Relativistic Gravel attack is impossible.
Even more hurtful than mass drivers.

Yes, this would do the job faster and with less material.


Nuclear Bullets

Certain artificial transuranic elements go critical at very small masses. Some element's critical mass could be bullet-sized. Such an element would be used as ammunition for the Fission Gun. The ammunition is a standard cartridge, with a special slug. This slug is divided into two subcritical masses of an isotope, seperated by a micron-thick sliver of aluminium foil. When the round is fired and hits a target, the subcritical masses combine, resulting in a nuclear explosion.

This would be good for piercing thick armor and hitting targets at critical points.. likely destroying very effectively.

One I might add would be the homing bullet.

This one has a cone on a bullet that directs it with some sort of sensory navigation, so the gun hits the mark almost always. Imagine guns that don't miss; and who has the armories? The capitalists...

Bugalu Shrimp
18th May 2005, 13:14
Big Stick

This can be used to hit people hard around the chops. It's still in development but should be ready by the time we need it.

ÑóẊîöʼn
19th May 2005, 09:00
Couldn't we avoid or sabotage technological developments that are probable producers of powerful weapons (likely to be used for ruling class benefit and working class suppression) though?

Not unless we win over the scientists and engineers developing weapons today.
And I don't particularly fancy storming the gates of Groom Lake Airforce base without body armour, assault rifles, grenades and artillery support. Care to provide the men and equipment necessary?
We could do some peaceful protests but I doubt that will stop some of the black book projects we know nothing about.



Where/how did Marx state this and how does it pertain to super-tech?

Since communism hasn't occurred in the past, and isn't occurring now, isn't it obvious that communist revolution will occur in the future?


Obviously technology exists to annihilate us all MANY times over; so what is to stop far more powerful technology from developing under capitalism?

Considering some of the weapons mentioned are already being researched, nothing apparently.


How does that lead to you final conclusion? I do see no reason to believe a communist society would always have "enemies."

We are enemies of capital, are we not? Evidence leads you to believe that there is a good chance we will be a significant threat to capitalism in the future, otherwise what's the point? If and when communism exists, and is showing it's age as a form of human society, some people will want to replace the society, and and will be against those who want to keep it. Of those groups, a portion of both will be violent. We do not know if the society proposed by the advocates of change will actually be better than communism.
There is also no reason to believe that communism will occur worldwide, at the same time. During that period, capitalist nations will threaten revolutionary and post-revolutionary 'nations' and we need both actively useful defenses and deterrants.
So, by the time that communism is a universal human social form, it might be seen to need replacing by a significant portion of the population, especially those who have been communist for longest. There is also the possibility, seeing their earthbound nations as doomed, that certain capitalist nations will devote significant resources attempting to set up colonies on the Moon and elsewhere in the Solar System.
You might laugh at this, but I also raise the possibility of aliens. While unlikely to be aggressive simply for the sake of being aggressive, like many movie aliens, if our biological needs are similar there will be competition, especially over earth-like worlds, which are likely to be rare. For idealogical and cultural reasons peaceful co-existance might be impossible.


Assuming these enemies exist and must be forcibly suppressed; wouldn’t a knife do the job, if needed? Why would they have significant force? If they have authority this wouldn't be communism. Technology that protects people would seem to be much better than weapons.

There's a saying; Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. A knife is useless if said enemy has a rifle, or hundreds of lackeys, or is sitting in a gaurded bunker, or has the resources of an entire nation at their disposal. While assassination is a useful terror weapon, It is a poor weapon against armies.
Armies only have authority on the battlefield, and in the case of communism are subject to the ultra-democratic will of the people.
Technology that protects people is weapons technology; offence if the best form of defence. Pre-emptive strikes against gatherings of enemy forces (known through intelligence) can save you a lot of hassle later on.


Interesting... I hope this turns out to be a good debate. Out of curiosity: how many of these weapons are known to be constructible?

I have tried to avoid weapons that break the laws of physics; remember, all that is not forbidden is compulsory. Physics limitations may make some of these weapons unreliable, ineffecient, or impractical.


So this could basically destroy any matter? Sounds useful for imperialists.

If that matter is an invading capitalist army, then it's useful for communists also.


Sounds good for killing people in mass.

Until they wrap infantry in powered armour, they are going to be pretty squishy.
Infantry = People (Who want to kill you)


What exactly is a "disintegrator particle?" This would be great for safeguarding ruling class wealth.

Disintergrator particles are subatomic particle accelerated at suffecient speeds to smash atoms apart. Not sure which type is best for this job.


...or you could have an automated grid to burn anyone that refuses to be a wage-slave.

Automated grid = area denial and missile screen.


…or to aid an occupying force attempting to colonize someone's home.

...Or to clear out enemy bunkers occupying your territory. Your choice.


Sounds super for interstellar conquest.

I'd mount them in Orbital Defense Pods for use against Mass Drivers and (With womrhole-based early warning systems) Relativistic Gravel.


Basically something resembling a virus that can destroy anything it is programed to and capable of dismantling.

Yes.


This would be a great way to exterminate dissidents.

Overkill, but I can't do anything about the psychotic tendencies of others.


How is the target aimed at? Tacticaly, this would work well to kill those hiding behind armor (esp conductive).

A stream of moistened air is projected by the weapon before firing, to prevent friendlies around the weapon being frazzled. Then you fire at an enemy tank within 600 metres.


The point of mines is that they are hard to detect; so how would you hide this?
This one would also help an invading force.

Good point; I suppose a more useful application would be defense and projectile screen(Passing objects get zapped).


Why limited? You could certainly make gravity "waves" with such technology and this could rip people apart, as well as anything else.

Good point.


Yeah, actually sound weapons are developing that make you sick to your stomach.

Literally or figuratively? :P


Yes, basically the ability to destroy anything... Why do we want this around now?

It would be the ultimate weapon. BUT it would require huge amounts of knowledge in order to develop; Gridfire needs the ability to stabilise and control wormholes, the ability to unravel dimensions, and FTL communications. None of these seem likely in the near future.
You would also be willing to devote significant resources to protecting the control room as their would be doubtless many seeking to destroy or control it.


Small potatoes... you could exterminate them by using million degree star plasma on whatever or rip them apart with the pull of a black hole.

You can also use wormholes to transport people and resources.


This one could actually have very productive applications.

Such as?


Very powerful by current weapon standards and has useful technological implications but as a weapon; would be able to kill quite efficiently.

Yes, you could use a giant railgun to transport ore pods off a low gravity worlds like the Moon.


We could roast cities like anthills!

I was thinking military bases. See my point on psychopaths above.


Yes, this would do the job faster and with less material.

You could also use neutron stars (hyperdense star corpses) for extra oomph.


This one has a cone on a bullet that directs it with some sort of sensory navigation, so the gun hits the mark almost always. Imagine guns that don't miss; and who has the armories? The capitalists...

At the moment they do...

apathy maybe
19th May 2005, 09:37
"I don't know what kind of weapons will be used in the third world war, assuming there will be a third world war. But I can tell you what the fourth world war will be fought with -- stone clubs."
-- Albert Einstein

ÑóẊîöʼn
19th May 2005, 09:41
And now an argument, please. Pithy quotes from overquoted scientists don't count.

Elect Marx
19th May 2005, 11:25
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 02:00 AM

Couldn't we avoid or sabotage technological developments that are probable producers of powerful weapons (likely to be used for ruling class benefit and working class suppression) though?

Not unless we win over the scientists and engineers developing weapons today.
And I don't particularly fancy storming the gates of Groom Lake Airforce base without body armour, assault rifles, grenades and artillery support. Care to provide the men and equipment necessary?
I would aid the cause in that way if I could but there are other ways to sabotage; EXAMPLE: we could attack/dissuade those facilitating the construction of super-weapons.


We could do some peaceful protests but I doubt that will stop some of the black book projects we know nothing about.

I agree but hopefully that might raise awareness; we could always use more comrades.




B) By the time feasable weaponry becomes significantly more lethal than those of today, communism (If Marx was right) will be the principal but not exclusive social structure of humanity,Where/how did Marx state this and how does it pertain to super-tech?Since communism hasn't occurred in the past, and isn't occurring now, isn't it obvious that communist revolution will occur in the future?

Yes but that doesn't answer my question; my question was based on your assertion that "By the time feasable weaponry becomes significantly more lethal than those of today, communism ...will be the principal ...social structure of humanity."



Obviously technology exists to annihilate us all MANY times over; so what is to stop far more powerful technology from developing under capitalism?

Considering some of the weapons mentioned are already being researched, nothing apparently.

Shouldn't we attack this threatening technology?



How does that lead to you final conclusion? I do see no reason to believe a communist society would always have "enemies."

We are enemies of capital, are we not? Evidence leads you to believe that there is a good chance we will be a significant threat to capitalism in the future, otherwise what's the point? If and when communism exists, and is showing it's age as a form of human society, some people will want to replace the society,

What!? Why would people want to replace communism after is has been successfully achieved?


There is also no reason to believe that communism will occur worldwide, at the same time. During that period, capitalist nations will threaten revolutionary and post-revolutionary 'nations' and we need both actively useful defenses and deterrants.

No, that would be a waste of time; when "the revolution comes," the workers take the means of production and have majority control. Super-weapons tend to concentrate power, restricting revolutionary activity and needlessly hurting people.


So, by the time that communism is a universal human social form, it might be seen to need replacing by a significant portion of the population, especially those who have been communist for longest. There is also the possibility, seeing their earthbound nations as doomed, that certain capitalist nations will devote significant resources attempting to set up colonies on the Moon and elsewhere in the Solar System.

What does that have to do with developing super-weapons NOW?


You might laugh at this, but I also raise the possibility of aliens. While unlikely to be aggressive simply for the sake of being aggressive, like many movie aliens, if our biological needs are similar there will be competition, especially over earth-like worlds, which are likely to be rare. For idealogical and cultural reasons peaceful co-existance might be impossible.

Okay; I will assume that is not only possible, but will happen. Currently workers cannot even work productively in capitalist society. As such, the most effective way to prepare is to depose capitalism. This is a matter of logical prioritization.



Assuming these enemies exist and must be forcibly suppressed; wouldn’t a knife do the job, if needed? Why would they have significant force? If they have authority this wouldn't be communism. Technology that protects people would seem to be much better than weapons.

There's a saying; Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. A knife is useless if said enemy has a rifle, or hundreds of lackeys, or is sitting in a gaurded bunker, or has the resources of an entire nation at their disposal. While assassination is a useful terror weapon, It is a poor weapon against armies.
Armies only have authority on the battlefield, and in the case of communism are subject to the ultra-democratic will of the people.

No; a knife will still do the job if you have a significant movement; as you said the ruling class wont kill all the workers. A knife was just an example; if they have guns, we can take their guns, we can take their cannons and we can continue to take but why allow them to grow their weapons advantage even if it is temporary (it could be perpetually "temporary")?


Technology that protects people is weapons technology; offence if the best form of defence. Pre-emptive strikes against gatherings of enemy forces (known through intelligence) can save you a lot of hassle later on.

Great but do we need super-weapons to do so?



This one could actually have very productive applications.

Such as?

EMP is the ultimate technological leveler at this point; you fire off an EMP and electronics stop working; if we where protected, the capitalists would be the ones fucked by the EMP wave and this can currently be made relatively easily.



So this could basically destroy any matter? Sounds useful for imperialists.

If that matter is an invading capitalist army, then it's useful for communists also.

.................................................. ...................................


This one has a cone on a bullet that directs it with some sort of sensory navigation, so the gun hits the mark almost always. Imagine guns that don't miss; and who has the armories? The capitalists...

At the moment they do...

The point is that super-tech gives rulers the advantage in the capitalist phase and we shouldn't allow this or aid the ruling class.

Severian
19th May 2005, 11:38
What kinda wank is this? The oppressed and exploited rarely have the technological upper hand. That's one reason why we're oppressed and exploited.

ÑóẊîöʼn
19th May 2005, 13:10
I would aid the cause in that way if I could but there are other ways to sabotage; EXAMPLE: we could attack/dissuade those facilitating the construction of super-weapons.

Such as who? We don't know our targets, or what measures are in place to protect them, physically and mentally. I'm not saying that sabotaging capitalist weapons research is a bad idea, in fact it is a highly useful tactic. I'm saying we don't have the resources to do so effectively.


Yes but that doesn't answer my question; my question was based on your assertion that "By the time feasable weaponry becomes significantly more lethal than those of today, communism ...will be the principal ...social structure of humanity."

My mistake, I meant that it's likely that by the time communism is a significant force in the world, the weaponry (Or at least some of it) listed above would be viable and useful and not just idle speculation. I retract my original statement, which was basically an argument from authority, yuk.


Shouldn't we attack this threatening technology?

As part of the capitalist system, absolutely. But we should use it for our own ends as well. I know it's almost dialectical in it's contradiction, but it makes sense if you think about it.


What!? Why would people want to replace communism after is has been successfully achieved?

Because they have a vision which is greater than the current society, in their eyes?
Or because they want society to serve their own ends.


No, that would be a waste of time; when "the revolution comes," the workers take the means of production and have majority control.

Agreed.


Super-weapons tend to concentrate power, restricting revolutionary activity and needlessly hurting people.

But if the power is in the hands of the workers, and only military and quasi-military targets are targetted (Police, war factories, etc), what is the problem?
Don't forget, rifles were once considered superweapons. So if we allow our weapons to lag behind technologically (Say the capitalists decide to update their infantry by providing powered armour and railguns which fire at 5000 rounds per minute)
we are fucked.


What does that have to do with developing super-weapons NOW?

Not much. But my original post was dealing with the future military capabilities of communists, seeming as a lot of people on this board envision it as a 'militia' with outdated weapons, no offensive capability and lack of heavy artillery, armour and no air force or navy, and very little training. We will need these things if we do not wish to be crushed by the capitalists. A militia is fine, but not enough.
Note in my original post I was talking in the future tense.


Okay; I will assume that is not only possible, but will happen. Currently workers cannot even work productively in capitalist society. As such, the most effective way to prepare is to depose capitalism. This is a matter of logical prioritization.

Agreed, but I feel it's necessary to at least form an outline of the society we want to create, as it gives us something to aim for. (Har har)
My main bone of contention is the under-armed, ineffectual militia that is being proposed as the only form of militarisation in communist society.
The consequences of failure to address this would mean the potential deaths of thousands, if not millions, in the future.


No; a knife will still do the job if you have a significant movement; as you said the ruling class wont kill all the workers. A knife was just an example; if they have guns, we can take their guns, we can take their cannons and we can continue to take but why allow them to grow their weapons advantage even if it is temporary (it could be perpetually "temporary")?

That's a fine tactic during the actual event of revolution, say in Western Europe, but once the means of production are in the control of the workers, it would be a good idea to form an army that is more than a glorified militia in order to defend against Russian/East European invasion, as imperialists they would love the opportunity to invade a Western Europe weakened by a revolution.


Great but do we need super-weapons to do so?

Yes, we do, I'm afraid. Because the capitalists will have them and will most likely have no qualms about using it against targets without superweapons.


EMP is the ultimate technological leveler at this point; you fire off an EMP and electronics stop working; if we where protected, the capitalists would be the ones fucked by the EMP wave and this can currently be made relatively easily.

That would be great if it were true. Even today there are ways to 'harden' electronic devices against EMP, so if attacked with a weapon all they have to do is reset their computers. It's an evolving technology, and so far protection is winning, but that could change.


The point is that super-tech gives rulers the advantage in the capitalist phase and we shouldn't allow this or aid the ruling class.

Of course not. Where did I say otherwise?

Elect Marx
19th May 2005, 23:30
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 06:10 AM

I would aid the cause in that way if I could but there are other ways to sabotage; EXAMPLE: we could attack/dissuade those facilitating the construction of super-weapons.

Such as who? We don't know our targets, or what measures are in place to protect them, physically and mentally. I'm not saying that sabotaging capitalist weapons research is a bad idea, in fact it is a highly useful tactic. I'm saying we don't have the resources to do so effectively.
You are right, we do not have enough but should work toward this end and support the destruction of super-weapons, specifically though: those that target people (An interesting aspect is those such as EMP, that only target technology). As for those that are directly useful and are too far along, we should attempt to claim these for as you have said, defensive and causes within our movement.



Yes but that doesn't answer my question; my question was based on your assertion that "By the time feasable weaponry becomes significantly more lethal than those of today, communism ...will be the principal ...social structure of humanity."

My mistake, I meant that it's likely that by the time communism is a significant force in the world, the weaponry (Or at least some of it) listed above would be viable and useful and not just idle speculation. I retract my original statement, which was basically an argument from authority, yuk.

Okay; my argument though is that we should try to avoid most of that technology, as it will cause many deaths and likely only hurt out cause.



Shouldn't we attack this threatening technology?

As part of the capitalist system, absolutely. But we should use it for our own ends as well. I know it's almost dialectical in it's contradiction, but it makes sense if you think about it.

Here I actually agree with you on super-tech, but most of these weapons would not be beneficial for both sides to have, we would do better to destroy them entirely (during capitalism). Even after capitalism, I would say we should prioritize defensive technology because it has many useful aspects; we currently have NO DEFENCE from geothermal changes and are in fact fucking ourselves with global warming. Furthermore, if we do not develop a grid or something to stop rock-ice bodies from colliding with the Earth, we are likely to "go the way of the dinosaurs."



What!? Why would people want to replace communism after is has been successfully achieved?

Because they have a vision which is greater than the current society, in their eyes?
Or because they want society to serve their own ends.

I see no reason to believe that would happen and "post-communism" is rather an arbitrary discussion at this point as we are still speculating on communism.



Super-weapons tend to concentrate power, restricting revolutionary activity and needlessly hurting people.

But if the power is in the hands of the workers, and only military and quasi-military targets are targetted (Police, war factories, etc), what is the problem?

"The problem" is that the capitalists as the ones that control the technology in their realm, will be more advanced in the usage and are better structured for dealing with dissidents. A single counterrevolutionary could detonate an anti-material bomb and destroy our movement on an entire continent; so we should avoid this sort of technology.


Don't forget, rifles were once considered superweapons. So if we allow our weapons to lag behind technologically (Say the capitalists decide to update their infantry by providing powered armour and railguns which fire at 5000 rounds per minute)
we are fucked.

I agree; as the weapons standard increases; we must often appropriate the new generations but this isn't to say we should aid their creation. The capitalists continue to gain advantage with these weapons, so the best method is to stop them and to stop the technology is most effective.



What does that have to do with developing super-weapons NOW?

Not much. But my original post was dealing with the future military capabilities of communists, seeming as a lot of people on this board envision it as a 'militia' with outdated weapons, no offensive capability and lack of heavy artillery, armour and no air force or navy, and very little training. We will need these things if we do not wish to be crushed by the capitalists. A militia is fine, but not enough.
Note in my original post I was talking in the future tense.

Right; so that is for a possible future and not for now. Good to think ahead but bad to act ahead and fuck us now.



Okay; I will assume that is not only possible, but will happen. Currently workers cannot even work productively in capitalist society. As such, the most effective way to prepare is to depose capitalism. This is a matter of logical prioritization.

Agreed, but I feel it's necessary to at least form an outline of the society we want to create, as it gives us something to aim for. (Har har)

I agree!


My main bone of contention is the under-armed, ineffectual militia that is being proposed as the only form of militarisation in communist society.

I would think we would arm as needed.


The consequences of failure to address this would mean the potential deaths of thousands, if not millions, in the future.

I agree; we need to consider the FORSEEABLE future every step of the way but preparing for 100 years from now negates the actions we currently need to take.



No; a knife will still do the job if you have a significant movement; as you said the ruling class wont kill all the workers. A knife was just an example; if they have guns, we can take their guns, we can take their cannons and we can continue to take but why allow them to grow their weapons advantage even if it is temporary (it could be perpetually "temporary")?

That's a fine tactic during the actual event of revolution, say in Western Europe, but once the means of production are in the control of the workers, it would be a good idea to form an army that is more than a glorified militia in order to defend against Russian/East European invasion, as imperialists they would love the opportunity to invade a Western Europe weakened by a revolution.

I agree; we would need an organized force and we should focus on defending ourselves and destroying the remnant ruling classes.



Great but do we need super-weapons to do so?

Yes, we do, I'm afraid. Because the capitalists will have them and will most likely have no qualms about using it against targets without superweapons.

Indeed but we do not need them to stop the capitalists if we sabotage their weaponry and as such we should focus more on disabling the capitalists than creating more arms, as the cappies could always take up those arms.



EMP is the ultimate technological leveler at this point; you fire off an EMP and electronics stop working; if we where protected, the capitalists would be the ones fucked by the EMP wave and this can currently be made relatively easily.

That would be great if it were true. Even today there are ways to 'harden' electronic devices against EMP, so if attacked with a weapon all they have to do is reset their computers. It's an evolving technology, and so far protection is winning, but that could change.

Are you so sure? An EMP bomb is very powerful, capable of bypassing a lot of shielding (by electro>magnetic “jumps”) and last I knew, the defensive "hardening" was grossly inadequate.



The point is that super-tech gives rulers the advantage in the capitalist phase and we shouldn't allow this or aid the ruling class.

Of course not. Where did I say otherwise?

:lol: Perhaps we will reach some middle-ground apteral but your consistent defense of the general usage of super-tech and seemingly indifferent attitude towards the power it gives capitalists was where I derived that refutation. Perhaps our past conflict has blurred up my thinking somewhat but hopefully we can progress from here :hammer:

Palmares
20th May 2005, 03:37
Moved this post (mine) from the CC thread to here:


Originally posted by NoXion+May 18 2005, 06:15 PM--> (NoXion @ May 18 2005, 06:15 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 07:11 AM

[email protected] 18 2005, 12:28 PM
Oh and about superweapons; is it still bad if communists have them?
What does militarism have to do with the non-fascistic leftism?
Unless you fancy fighting your enemies with just rifles and homemade bombs, a military is necessary. I don't see why we should primitivise ourselves if all it means is we cannot effectively defend ourselves. Guerilla war should be a last resort, not a modus operandi.

'Superweapons' have their place and eventually become conventional arms as technology progresses. [/b]
This has no relevance to a post-capitalist society. As such things would no longer be neccessary.

Only in the capitalist context does it hold, as it that case, weaponry of sorts may be neccessary: as in, there will be a (capitalist) structure for it and even revolutionary reasons to use violence.

It has nothing to do with any sort of "primitivism".

But to be quite honest, I'm not how a revolution can come of the usage of "superweapons", and even if I did, I would not want to use them, unless there was no other way.

I would only use it, to destroy itself (being a capitalist weapon).

bed_of_nails
20th May 2005, 03:56
Artificial Lifeforms

Highly implausible. Unless you can create this lifeform to embrace death and look forwards to possibly dieing, its like creating a squadron of people who know they are cannon fodder for someone else.

Gridfire

Also highly implausible. You are trying to tell me numerous things occupy the same space, and can be made to overlap.


Gravity Weapons

Graviton particles so far cannot be replicated, so this is impossible.

Lightning Gun

Impossible unless something at the designated target is already effecting the ions. You would need a device lowering the amount of ions in the designated area already.

apathy maybe
20th May 2005, 06:59
Originally posted by NoXion+May 19 2005, 08:41 PM--> (NoXion @ May 19 2005, 08:41 PM) And now an argument, please. Pithy quotes from overquoted scientists don't count. [/b]
What is there to argue about? You are proposing fantastical (at the moment anyway, and for some always so) weapons, which would cause great pain and suffering. I simple observed (using someone else's words) that these weapons (rather people using these weapons) have the ability to cause lots of damage to civilisation. Weapons aren't the answer.


NoXion
After a recent debate, I have come to the conclusion that A) As technology develops, more and more powerful weapons are developed as a result. This unfortunately seems inevitable, B) By the time feasible weaponry becomes significantly more lethal than those of today, communism (If Marx was right) will be the principal but not exclusive social structure of humanity, leading to my final conclusion, that there will always be enemies of communism, and that such enemies need to be fought with the best available weapons, meaning that weapons research will be a necessary evil.

OK so I guess I could argue with this. Point A seems reasonable, except it doesn't have to be inevitable.
Why will there always be powerful enemies of communism? If communism is the dominant ideology, then why are these weapons needed.
If the enemies don't have access to funding then they can't create super-weapons, thus we don't need 'em either.

SpeCtrE
20th May 2005, 07:33
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 05:51 AM
After a recent debate, I have come to the conclusion that A) As technology develops, more and more powerful weapons are developed as a result. This unfortunately seems inevitable, B) By the time feasable weaponry becomes significantly more lethal than those of today, communism (If Marx was right) will be the principal but not exclusive social structure of humanity, leading to my final conclusion, that there will always be enemies of communism, and that such enemies need to be fought with the best available weapons, meaning that weapons research will be a necessary evil.

So, what are our options? Here are some possible future developments:

Disruption Weaponry

These weapons fire beams of particles that disrupt subatomic bonds. Really advanced and powerful versions could disassociate targets to the Planck level, effectively phasing them out of existance.

Plasma Weapons

Plasma is a very hot and fluid type of matter; It is the state of matter that the Sun is in. It can be magnetically contained, meaning it can be conveyed along a gun barrel.
It can be many thousands of degrees in temperature, causing nearby objects to burst into flames with the sheer heat. This can have a great psychological influence, as it is quite disturbing to see one half of a fellow squad be instantly incinerated to ash, and the other half spontaneously combust.

Disruptive Shields

Both a defensive and offensive technology, Disruption Shields form a magnetically controlled bubble of disintergrator particles around a unit, destroying projectiles and damaging approaching units.

Lasers

You know what these are. we already have industrial lasers, so imagine them beefed up and scaled down to infantry rifle size. You've got yourself a potent point defense system and anti-missile weapon.

Mazers

As above, but with microwaves. Probably good for cooking enemy infantry.

X-Ray Lasers

Another variety, this time mounted in a missile and 'pumped' power by a nuclear bomb.
Most likely to be a starship weapon.

Nano-Disassemblers

While I'm personally skeptical about nanotech claims, this could be feasable with an appropiate delivery system; tiny little robots (Obviously) that converts any solid matter that emits a specified amount of heat into fuel and copies of itself. Should be treated as a biological weapon, but can threaten vehicles also.

Von Neumann Machines ('Autowars')

Like the above, but this time macro-scaled machines devour local matter (non-offensively) in order to self-replicate, attacking enemies while doing so.
Enemies who are slow in eliminating this threat will have a literally growing problem on their hands.

Lightning Gun

This weapon builds a massive negative charge while simultaneously building up a greater amount of positive charge on the target, resulting in a massive electric disharge. Good 'shock weapon' Because of the bright light and loud noise.

Tesla Coil

Most of you should know what this is. If you don't, google it. With a suffeciently powerful and compact energy supply, this would be a useful tactical level 'area-denial' weapon.
More humane that mines because they eventually run out energy and are more noticable.

Gravity Weapons

That's right, and it's more sophisticated than dropping rocks on your enemies (More on that later) If you can manipulate space-time, then surely, gravity being a curvature in aforementioned, you can manipulate it so that gravity is very high in a local area.
This weapon has surprisingly limited application. Without a doubt this is a weapon of last resort, as it can crush planets into singularities and cause stars (Of any type!) to go supernova.

Sonic Weapons

Not talking about the neighbour who won't turn his music down, but using soundwaves offensively. Causes organ rupture in infantry and will crack armoured vehicles if powerful enough.

'Gridfire'

Imagine a dimension full of violent, destructive energy. Imagine being able to open a portal of any desired size to this dimension, anywhere you want (right on top of an enemy).
That is Gridfire.

Wormhole Weapons

As with Gridfire, except it takes things away. You can hoover up entire enemy fleets with them, eat a planet up from the inside, or slowly suck the life from an enemy star.

Electromagnetic Pulse (Electronic Warfare)

Besides occuring as side effects of the atmospheric use of nuclear weapons, EMP has a utility of it's own; even today, Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) is in active service.

Neutron Weapons

Particle Accelerators turned weapons. Can be directed unlike neutron bombs, is very effective against biological assets, and can disrupt electronics too.

Railguns

Enjoying a current popularity in fiction, so there's a good chance you may have heard of them. Uses twin electromagnetic rails to propel a projectile at hypervelocities to a target.

Coilguns

Similar to above, but projectile does not contact coils so there is no wear & tear.
Would be suitable as space-based weapons for firing anti-matter.

Parabolic Mirrors

Focuses the sun's rays onto a target, frying it. Mirror will need to be at least a thousand km in diameter.

Anti-Matter Bombs

Think nukes on steroids that are 'clean' apart from an initial burst of gamma rays.
Wonder.

Artificial Lifeforms

An area denial weapon. The prospect of facing a tough, strong, smart species that insidiously reproduces via invisible spores and is downright scary-looking is pants-pissingly terrfying. Make them capable of interstellar travel for greater gribbly effect.
Or you could create a soldier race.

Mass Drivers

Similar to Coilguns, but instead these fire kilometer-wide asteroids at planets.
Highly devastating.

Relativistic Gravel

Fragments of asteroid accelerated to near-lightspeed at a target - without FTL communication systems, defence against a Relativistic Gravel attack is impossible.
Even more hurtful than mass drivers.

That's about all I could think of right now.
Thoughts?
NoXion watches too much star trek , he shouldn't be taken seriously.

ÑóẊîöʼn
20th May 2005, 11:27
If you lot want to argue the tech, that's also fine.


Artificial Lifeforms

Highly implausible. Unless you can create this lifeform to embrace death and look forwards to possibly dieing, its like creating a squadron of people who know they are cannon fodder for someone else.

If you can create an artificial lifeform, then you'll have have no problem altering it's behaviour genetically to suit your needs. If you're a big showoff you can program your ideology into it's very genes, turning an excellent fighter into a zealous one as well.


Also highly implausible. You are trying to tell me numerous things occupy the same space, and can be made to overlap.

Failing that, you can open a wormhole, one end in the heart of a star and the other end pointing at the target.


Graviton particles so far cannot be replicated, so this is impossible.

I wasn't talking about gravitons you dumbarse, I was accepting the mainstream theory that gravity is caused by a curvature in the fabric of space time. My point was that if you could manipulate that curvature, like you do with wormholes, then surely you can increase the gravity in a specified area - like around a planet to crush it into a black hole.


Lightning Gun

Impossible unless something at the designated target is already effecting the ions. You would need a device lowering the amount of ions in the designated area already.

OK then, fit a 'de-ionising' target marker rifle attatchment then.


NoXion watches too much star trek , he shouldn't be taken seriously.

Star Trek weapons are shit, they aren't even remotely plausible, unlike this carefully thought-out list. Can you name any weapons in Star Trek that are on this list as well?
Thought not.

Plus Star Trek has absolutely crap squad tactics, which consist of beaming down to a location without grenades, body armour, vehicles or any other form of heavy support. A WWII army could fucking slaughter those stupid redshirts, let alone a modern army.

Ever watched Stargate? (Series not the film) That's the way to kick alien ass.

Grrr.

Paradox
21st May 2005, 04:26
You forgot light sabers.

Raisa
21st May 2005, 05:11
What the hell do we need super weapons for? We are not the imperialists!

We need an educated and resistant mass, we need strategy and civilian power.

In the Viet Nam war the Americans had the super weapons and they lost the fight.


We dont need any super weapons.

redstar2000
21st May 2005, 13:18
Originally posted by Raisa
In the Viet Nam war the Americans had the super weapons and they lost the fight.

Quite so. In Iraq, the U.S. has all kinds of high-tech shit...and still can't win.

"Super-weapons" are "cool"...but of little use unless you want to totally destroy something. It would be "easy" for the U.S. to turn Iraq into an uninhabitable radioactive wasteland...or any other country.

But where's the money in that? How do you profit from the "labor" of corpses?

The whole point of imperialist war is to conquer territory and population...so that the imperialists may exploit both the resources and the labor of the conquered. If they kill all and destroy all, then the conquest becomes a loss...whatever was spent on their efforts is down the toilet and the "return on investment" is negative!

In my opinion, the most dangerous weapons research today is so-called "non-lethal crowd control" -- high-tech devices intended to be used against mass demonstrations.

I hope some folks on our side are looking into defenses against such weapons...but I haven't heard of any efforts along those lines so far. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Zingu
25th May 2005, 05:54
EMP weapons are alot more powerful than you think, and will change the way of warfare.


I read somewhere of the possibilities of EMP weaponry if it can turned into a tatical battlefield advantage.


EMP weapons could be used to shut down guided cruise missiles while they are in flight, basically beaming them down. EMP weaponry would replace Anti-aircraft missiles with a simple "beam".

EMP weapons could be used to disable jets while they are in flight, render tanks inoperable. There is even the possibility of EMP fields that can make a perfect missile defense for cities.

EMP weapons of course could be used crudely to take out entire power grids, but I think the tactical battlefield advantage is much greater.

Ironically, EMP weapons are incrediably easy to make compared to other weapons.

ÑóẊîöʼn
25th May 2005, 11:04
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 04:54 AM
EMP weapons are alot more powerful than you think, and will change the way of warfare.


I read somewhere of the possibilities of EMP weaponry if it can turned into a tatical battlefield advantage.


EMP weapons could be used to shut down guided cruise missiles while they are in flight, basically beaming them down. EMP weaponry would replace Anti-aircraft missiles with a simple "beam".

EMP weapons could be used to disable jets while they are in flight, render tanks inoperable. There is even the possibility of EMP fields that can make a perfect missile defense for cities.

EMP weapons of course could be used crudely to take out entire power grids, but I think the tactical battlefield advantage is much greater.

Ironically, EMP weapons are incrediably easy to make compared to other weapons.
If EMP is the battlefield panacea that you claim it is, it would indeed change the face of warfare - BUT all that will mean is that precision fire (laser-guided rockets and computer-assisted aiming) will be replaced by massed fire (Thousands of unguided rockets and higher rates of fire for all weapons) or weapons with a very wide blast radius - superweapons. Ironically, EMP encourages the development of superweapons by rendering precision fire useless, thus meaning you have to throw a lot more at your enemy in order to ensure a kill.

It seems like the battle tactics of World War II will return after all!

ÑóẊîöʼn
25th May 2005, 15:20
Quite so. In Iraq, the U.S. has all kinds of high-tech shit...and still can't win.

All the weapons in the world won't help you if you use the tactics the US is currently using. If they want to win the people over in Iraq, they should be engaged in massive humanitarian operations to win their hearts and minds. Since they are hell-bent on setting up the quisling government so they can get the oil flowing, this won't happen.
To the US, psychological warfare is 'shock and awe' Not so. Psychological warfare also means winning the locals to your cause.


In my opinion, the most dangerous weapons research today is so-called "non-lethal crowd control" -- high-tech devices intended to be used against mass demonstrations.

This is what I've been trying to say; It isn't lethal weapons we ought to fear, but the non-lethal weapons used by the rulers to keep the proletariat in line.
We should be able to vapourise them if they try to re-enslave us.


I hope some folks on our side are looking into defenses against such weapons...but I haven't heard of any efforts along those lines so far. :(

Suffeciently thick pieces of steel (Read: trashcan lid) or whatever they make microwave doors out of should be anough to deflect/absorb microwave radiation, especially in the doses they are planning to use in crowd-control weapons.

codyvo
25th May 2005, 17:34
I think someone has watched a little too much Star Trek.

Seriously though, I think that first installing a communist government would be a lot more productive than talking abou which super high tech laser beams we are going to use to defend ourselves. Honestly Noxion, I am sure you are a very intelligent person, don't you think you could put your mind to something a little more constructive?

ÑóẊîöʼn
26th May 2005, 00:37
I think someone has watched a little too much Star Trek.

Yet another ignoramus who thinks Star Trek has any scientific validity.

Honestly, the Federation are a bunch of fucking space hippies. Effective weaponry is something that is beyond them.

If you guys haven't got the hint yet, I HATE Star Trek. Star Wars is also sucky.


Seriously though, I think that first installing a communist government would be a lot more productive than talking abou which super high tech laser beams we are going to use to defend ourselves. Honestly Noxion, I am sure you are a very intelligent person, don't you think you could put your mind to something a little more constructive?

Other people are working on the shape of communist administration and there is at least one model that is satisfactory to me.
I happen to have an interest in weaponry and am curious to see what uses future applications of weaponry have in communist society. I think it is a matter which needs at least some thought.

Some form of planning negates the 'oh fuck, why didn't we think of that' feeling you get when things go wrong.

Che NJ
26th May 2005, 21:36
super weapons are dangerous and immeasurably unfair to the people they are being used against. these "black hole" and "wormhole" weapons also run the risk of destroying the fabric of the universe's existence, in which case nobody wins. I'd prefer sticking to old school warfare and forget about the robots and lasers.

Palmares
27th May 2005, 02:32
Just ignore me then...

The Apathetic Atheist
27th May 2005, 04:03
There is a current project by the United States military involving advanced technologies. It includes homing bullets which can tell the difference from friendly and enemy targets. The suit that the soldier wears has nano technology that gives the soldier wearing it ten times his normal strength.

Another possibility for nano technology that I can recall is one that delivers oxygen to the blood stream, allowing a person to stay under water for hours without any clunky devices.

codyvo
27th May 2005, 07:26
Originally posted by The Apathetic [email protected] 27 2005, 03:03 AM
There is a current project by the United States military involving advanced technologies. It includes homing bullets which can tell the difference from friendly and enemy targets.
Yeah it goes for whoever has the darkest skin.

And to respond to Noxion, you apparently must watch some star trek to know that their weapons won't work and if you want to be serious about this than any star trek is too much star trek, so yes someone has been watching too much star trek. Also others are working on the administration but the revolution isn't going anywhere yet, why don't you first work on overthrowing them then start the weapons program which I would still be opposed to.

ÑóẊîöʼn
27th May 2005, 07:27
super weapons are dangerous and immeasurably unfair to the people they are being used against.

Why should we 'play fair' with capitalists? Why not use every dirty trick in the book against them?


these "black hole" and "wormhole" weapons also run the risk of destroying the fabric of the universe's existence, in which case nobody wins.

Black holes are simply hyperdense objects whose escape velocities exceed that of light.
Wormholes cannot be used for time travel and need constant maintenance, otherwise they will collapse. What would be the point of a weapon that erases the entirety of existance?


I'd prefer sticking to old school warfare and forget about the robots and lasers.

Fine then, my mass-produced self replicating army of robotic killers will simply massacre your puny human army with it's arsenal of energy and antimatter weapons.


Just ignore me then...

Which points do you wish me to address?


There is a current project by the United States military involving advanced technologies. It includes homing bullets which can tell the difference from friendly and enemy targets.

Interesting to see how it's done. Passive transponders probably.


The suit that the soldier wears has nano technology that gives the soldier wearing it ten times his normal strength.

A power armour suit powered by carbon fibre bundles would be a better idea.


Another possibility for nano technology that I can recall is one that delivers oxygen to the blood stream, allowing a person to stay under water for hours without any clunky devices.

In combination with nanos that synthesise adrenalin, that would also be an excellent combat booster.

ÑóẊîöʼn
27th May 2005, 07:36
Yeah it goes for whoever has the darkest skin.

Cynic!


And to respond to Noxion, you apparently must watch some star trek to know that their weapons won't work and if you want to be serious about this than any star trek is too much star trek, so yes someone has been watching too much star trek.

Your reasoning is dubious. You seem to miss the point that Star Trek could also provide some good pointers as to how not to run an interstellar society.
You don't take into account of the fact that has to actually see something in order to judge whether it's any good.
I have seen Star Trek, and my personal conclusion is that it is a steaming crapheap, ergo I no longer watch Star Trek


Also others are working on the administration but the revolution isn't going anywhere yet, why don't you first work on overthrowing them then start the weapons program which I would still be opposed to.

An armament program will be necessary if we are to effectively defend ourselves from the non-communist world.

codyvo
27th May 2005, 07:57
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 06:36 AM

Yeah it goes for whoever has the darkest skin.

Cynic!

It was a joke. The US only bombs brown people, the last time we bombed a white person was 60 years ago and thats because they were cuttin' in on our action.

Vallegrande
27th May 2005, 20:46
I believe that all of these goals of star wars weapons has indeed come from Nikolai Tesla. There was a superman cartoon back in early 1900's of superman fighting Tesla and his "Deathray" beam. Tesla had a great mind, but he was so far ahead of his time it is unthinkable. Many things Tesla made, but others (like Edison) took credit for.

ice87
28th May 2005, 17:58
Most of this stuff in your list are way too far in teh future. except for the rail guns. I doubt most of these can be made withing 100 years.

bed_of_nails
29th May 2005, 03:18
I wasn't talking about gravitons you dumbarse, I was accepting the mainstream theory that gravity is caused by a curvature in the fabric of space time. My point was that if you could manipulate that curvature, like you do with wormholes, then surely you can increase the gravity in a specified area - like around a planet to crush it into a black hole.

You lack the understanding of the concept that this mass in space is giving off Graviton particles, which are what gravity theoretically consists of.




OK then, fit a 'de-ionising' target marker rifle attatchment then.

Yeah, that makes sense :rolleyes:

You need something AT THE SPECIFIC POINT that is currently creating negative ions in the exact location you wish to hit. Unless you can get your target to hold a lightning rod, this is extremely implausible.

codyvo
29th May 2005, 03:33
Hey Noxion why don't you firsttry to make advances on the guns we already have, I hear that M16's jam a lot and lots of other guns have similiar problems, even that seems much more practical than trying to design laser guns and such.

Jesus Christ!
29th May 2005, 04:22
I have an idea, how about we don't stoop to the opressors level and use "superweapons" and we take the high road and fight a non violent revolution. Theyre would be much less lose of lives on both sides and if the oppressors want to fight us we won't fight back and we will win the worlds sympathy and trust, and the oppressors will be show for who they truely are. Also lets be honest with ourselves, a band of rag tag revolutionary groups will not be able to out wepon a huge wealthy state.

Elect Marx
29th May 2005, 05:51
Originally posted by Jesus Christ!@May 28 2005, 09:22 PM
I have an idea, how about we don't stoop to the opressors level and use "superweapons"
Hmm, yet another son of god? That guy is busy...

I agree with this part.


and we take the high road and fight a non violent revolution.

Non-violence only works if the mercenaries and “Special Forces” decide not to shoot you; otherwise you are committing suicide with HOPE that some good will come of it. “Live to fight another day.”


Theyre would be much less lose of lives on both sides

Okay; so the ruling class is willing to kill entire villages of people and their own troops yet you think they wont kill us; their ENEMY? Okay, lay down and die. Maybe I will be saddened but most people won't even fucking know you ever lived.


and if the oppressors want to fight us we won't fight back and we will win the worlds sympathy and trust,

Who will tell this story? Your dead comrades or the press owned by the ruling class? We have enough martyrs already.


and the oppressors will be show for who they truely are.

They show us every damn day by the blood of tens of thousands of people; this MAKES them oppressors.


Also lets be honest with ourselves, a band of rag tag revolutionary groups will not be able to out wepon a huge wealthy state.

I agree but you share a similar problem with those you disagree with; this is not a black and white issue. This is not pure militant action or pacifism; we need to take militant action when we must and we need to organize our social structure as well.

Zingu
29th June 2005, 07:00
The US military is also researching chemical weapons to alter the human brain; turning people in docile sheep and stimulating forced reactions on the target. Quite scary I might say. But, its all the better for us all to have gas masks.


Also, on a lighter note; China has developed and are producing Nuclear ICBMs that can counter the American Missile Defence System, already making it obsolete.

Organic Revolution
29th June 2005, 07:33
communism... or anarchism, in my case, doesnt adovocate the building up of pointless weapons to destroy society... i didnt get into this to kill people in mass... did you?

ÑóẊîöʼn
29th June 2005, 16:20
The US military is also researching chemical weapons to alter the human brain; turning people in docile sheep and stimulating forced reactions on the target. Quite scary I might say. But, its all the better for us all to have gas masks.

That's why I propose a strong military research arm, in order to combat any threats offered by the capitalists.


communism... or anarchism, in my case, doesnt adovocate the building up of pointless weapons to destroy society... i didnt get into this to kill people in mass... did you?

We will need to be able to retaliate in some sort of meaningful of fashion if a capitalist nation were to invade a communist society - so that if america attempts to invade the Iberian peninsula of revolutionary Europe, we can at least turn the USA's east coast into radioactive glass with a couple of amat bombs. This is to show we mean business. Too often have revolutionaries been soft on the opposition.

We would also need technology to counter ICBMs - a few militiamen armed with rifles ain't gonna cut it.

Organic Revolution
29th June 2005, 18:26
fuck destroying land. it is a land that is not ours so why should we have the right to destroy it.

ÑóẊîöʼn
29th June 2005, 19:06
Originally posted by rise [email protected] 29 2005, 05:26 PM
fuck destroying land. it is a land that is not ours so why should we have the right to destroy it.
Did you read the post? It's not just destroying land for it's own sake, we need the ability to retaliate.

Vallegrande
29th June 2005, 20:01
Does anyone know how to make Tesla coils, or create free energy? :lol:
That would be a first step.