NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, that's right. I was working on a science assignment, and I read that some armies are currently developing laser based weaponry.

In fact, the only thing in the way of having laser based weaponry was lack of funding.

Now, I'll let that set in for a while.

***

Okay. Now, think about it. If, say, my nation was placed on Earth, it would be the richest nation in existence, and the 3rd most populous. Maybe even 2nd. I have more money in my military budget than I do on anything else.

Wonder where this is heading? That means that, if the US is developing or testing something, it is fully capable for me to have my entire army fully equipped with it.

Lasers? Check. Hovercraft armed with weapons? Check. Chemical weapons capable of destroying an entire city? Can do. That 'power-armor' DARPA is looking into? I can own it, and I own SDI too.

Do you see what this means? One more thing. Some famous guy, when I remember his name I'll put it down, said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology can resemble magic".

That provides a loophole for magic players that want to interact with 'future' and 'modern' tech.

I will now open the floor for discussion.

No comments? Pity. I suppose it's too much to hope that any of you would appreciate an attempt to get you all to set aside your differences.

By the way, anticipating something you are all thinking, it is also fully realistic, within the way I run my nation, to have them. Roania is a police state where the proletariat exists for no reason other than to serve the higher classes.

I had a mecha program in Raysia, 2010 tech, but I scrapped it.

It is very possible to have mecha in modern tech, especially with electrostricting plastics.

Lasers are modern tech, up to about 3 or 4 Megawatts. Not enough to fight off a cap ship, but it could take out a missile maybe

Firstly dont be dissin people that might not of seen the thread.

Secondly yeah it's an exciting topic to discuss lasers in the real world coooool. Unfortunately they aint how we all see them. No shiney red light burning through people :P

Anyways I've read sites of research and development of laser systems like the MTHEL and the US employs an air borne laser system for missile threats I think.

They also ran tests of Space based lasers that used a chemical reaction to power a laser that could target and destroy enemy ICBMs over the country that launched them. It's all rather interesting to read and exciting too. I personaly cant wait for the day they actually develope them on an infantry base level. It'd definately be a big advance into the realm of what we all call Science-fiction and future.

The USA is scheduled to test a 1 MW airbourne laser in 2010. (and my alt Ell also has it)

Its not currently possible to build a LASER powerful enough to deal damage in a housing small enough to be carried by a person. And a vehicle based LASER wouldn't have the punch of current solid-state weapons. Unless all you want to do is blind people. I'll note that we do have LASER pointers. Thats about as powerful as we can get at that size. Not very impressive as a weapon, huh?

Yes, Roania, you do need to wait more than six minutes for responses.

That said, yes, of course weapons-grade lasers are feasible modern technology. Provided one has a sufficiently capable power source.

Firstly dont be dissin people that might not of seen the thread.

Secondly yeah it's an exciting topic to discuss lasers in the real world coooool. Unfortunately they aint how we all see them. No shiney red light burning through people :P

Anyways I've read sites of research and development of laser systems like the MTHEL and the US employs an air borne laser system for missile threats I think.

They also ran tests of Space based lasers that used a chemical reaction to power a laser that could target and destroy enemy ICBMs over the country that launched them. It's all rather interesting to read and exciting too. I personaly cant wait for the day they actually develope them on an infantry base level. It'd definately be a big advance into the realm of what we all call Science-fiction and future.

I figured that insulting people would get comments. This is a fairly important topic, one that, if I judged it correctly, could have a massive effect on ageist/modernist nations.

It's fully possible to have a shiny red light burning through people. If you put a person in front of an industrial laser, they'll get burnt through. Very quickly.

Lasers (assuming that infantry based ones will be used) are all well and cool, but what happens if you drop it and all the neat little gizmos inside break? Personally, I'd rather take an AK over any type of infantry based laser, because you can drop the damn thing in the mud for a month, then pull it out, clean it up and load in a fresh round and it'll still work.

As for those anti-missile lasers: those are cool too, but the more complex things are the more problems they tend to have. And we all know how Murphy shows up at the worst possible times. I'd rather go missile to missile then trust a thing that hasn't even been throughly proven to work 100%.

*Notices he's rambling due to exhaustion....*

Yes, Roania, you do need to wait more than six minutes for responses.

That said, yes, of course weapons-grade lasers are feasible modern technology. Provided one has a sufficiently capable power source.

Sorry, but my clock is... odd. And, since it said that 18 people had looked at this, and since I type pretty quickly myself, I thought...

I'll edit it, though.

Just b/c the US is looking into it doesn't mean you can have it arbitrarily! OICWs, okay. JSFs, cool. ASAT and HK Satellites, no prob. Man portable particle weaponry? Um... no. I mean, the US was looking into many things later found to be beyond reason (ie bullet nukes, the original SDI, the Seawolf Class, the Aurora, the XB-70 Valkrye, etc). Some were found impossible others illogical or some simply too expensive to justify when you could build three slightly worse ships for a lot cheaper, and they would whoop ass. Just b/c some bored engineer said, "Hey, lets try strapping a magnetic field generator onto some deck plates and call in a MAGNETODOOM Device!" doesn't mean it would work, at least within the 2030 Post-Modern tech boudary.

Its not currently possible to build a LASER powerful enough to deal damage in a housing small enough to be carried by a person. And a vehicle based LASER wouldn't have the punch of current solid-state weapons. Unless all you want to do is blind people. I'll note that we do have LASER pointers. Thats about as powerful as we can get at that size. Not very impressive as a weapon, huh?

A vehicle based LASER could do a hell of a lot of damage to other vehicles, or to people.

And considering the use I put my weapons to, my targets wouldn't be able to do much.

A vehicle based LASER could do a hell of a lot of damage to other vehicles, or to people.

What if you put mirrors around your vehicles?

:wink:

One more thing. Some famous guy, when I remember his name I'll put it down, said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology can resemble magic".


Arthur C Clarke.

Lasers (assuming that infantry based ones will be used) are all well and cool, but what happens if you drop it and all the neat little gizmos inside break? Personally, I'd rather take an AK over any type of infantry based laser, because you can drop the damn thing in the mud for a month, then pull it out, clean it up and load in a fresh round and it'll still work.

As for those anti-missile lasers: those are cool too, but the more complex things are the more problems they tend to have. And we all know how Murphy shows up at the worst possible times. I'd rather go missile to missile then trust a thing that hasn't even been throughly proven to work 100%.

*Notices he's rambling due to exhaustion....*

True true on all that except even THAAD and MEADS systems are not completely proven I think someone made a comment on when I released my variants of the system that they hoped I corrected the targetting problem so they could actually target things.

I read some where of a british or italian missile system that could target air launched missiles just as they are launched and intercept them in flight which is sweet. I cant remember it's name I'll have to look it up. and the patriot PAC-3 variant is going to be used for MEADS (or so says globalsecurity.org) I'd be more inclined for missile-missile defenses than lasers too but still.

The thought of running around with a laser is kinda.... kinky :mrgreen:

Cool note: Tesla tech is real though, if unpredictable and expensive and ungodly dangerous as weapons. He made some wack stuff back in the 1930s that we still can't figure out (ie Cloaking Device using Mag-Fields, the Particle "Death Ray", Tesla Coil Weapons). Also, active camo is in late devo with the Army, due to come out 2020. Pain beams are cool, too.

EDIT: Saw what I read, decided to research old Tesla stuff to appease my C&C urges. :twisted:

Its not currently possible to build a LASER powerful enough to deal damage in a housing small enough to be carried by a person. And a vehicle based LASER wouldn't have the punch of current solid-state weapons. Unless all you want to do is blind people. I'll note that we do have LASER pointers. Thats about as powerful as we can get at that size. Not very impressive as a weapon, huh?

A vehicle based LASER could do a hell of a lot of damage to other vehicles, or to people.

And considering the use I put my weapons to, my targets wouldn't be able to do much.

At current, the largest LASER a tank could carry would be much less likely to scratch a tank than a HEAT round would be to destroy it when firing on the front armor. Ie, modern weaponry is better. In 200 years? Who knows.

Pain beams are cool, too.

More like stun beam. Right now it's the size of a suitcase, and they're hoping to make it a handheld device. :P

Kauk, get on AIM ^_^
[/hijack]

Just b/c the US is looking into it doesn't mean you can have it arbitrarily! OICWs, okay. JSFs, cool. ASAT and HK Satellites, no prob. Man portable particle weaponry? Um... no. I mean, the US was looking into many things later found to be beyond reason (ie bullet nukes, the original SDI, the Seawolf Class, the Aurora, the XB-70 Valkrye, etc). Some were found impossible others illogical or some simply too expensive to justify when you could build three slightly worse ships for a lot cheaper, and they would whoop ass. Just b/c some bored engineer said, "Hey, lets try strapping a magnetic field generator onto some deck plates and call in a MAGNETODOOM Device!" doesn't mean it would work, at least within the 2030 Post-Modern tech boudary.

I never mentioned portable lasers, not once, thank you.

Arthur C Clarke.

Thanks.

What if you put mirrors around your vehicles?

Then you are slightly paranoid, and also begging for the poor sod inside to die from bombing.

Cool note: Tesla tech is real though, if unpredictable and expensive and ungodly dangerous as weapons. He made some wack stuff back in the 1930s that we still can't figure out (ie Cloaking Device using Mag-Fields, the Particle "Death Ray", Tesla Coil Weapons). Also, active camo is in late devo with the Army, due to come out 2020. Pain beams are cool, too.

There is nothing less sensible and more dangerous to humanity then a nation of any sort putting into use his weaponary. Nothing.

Hey, if you're on the west coast, there's a special on Laser weaponry possibilities on the history channel.

What if you put mirrors around your vehicles?

Then you are slightly paranoid, and also begging for the poor sod inside to die from bombing.

Erm....that was a joke, intended to produce laughter.

Could i get a cite or link on the Tesla stuff?

Actually, I believe the ABL (Air Borne Laser) will be 2-3 megawatts, not 1. Though a lower-power test could be scheduled first (would make a lot of sense).

Here is the overall US plan:

The US Air Force is to develop chemical based lasers. You might think of these as being like rocket engines...you use a chemical reaction to provide power. You may get 5-20 shots off at 500 kilowatts to 5 megawatts...possibly more from an immobile ground station.

Current ideas are for air and possibly space based lasers, though mountaintop lasers are also a possibility. The hope is mostly aimed at balistic missile defense, but also at satelite/space warfare.

The US Army is developing solid state lasers. These are like your laser pointer pen...but much stronger. They typically get tens to hundreads of kilowatts of power and pulse (save energy and release it several times a second) to get more damage out. The army wants to put them on armored vehicles to destroy unexploaded ordinance, shoot down missiles, and for other possible purposes. Basically, you power them with a large diesel generator and maybe hold some charge in a capacitor or inductor.

The US Navy is (supposedly) developing free electron lasers. The idea is to accelerate a particle (usually an electron) to a high fraction the speed of light, then to use electromagnets to "wiggle" it at the appropriate frequency. The advantage is that you can get a lot of power and a fair few frequencies out of it. The disadvantage is that it takes a large source of energy and a lot of room. Fortionately, room and energy are something Navy ships have in abundance...well, not according to the Navy, but at least when compared to your typical tank, truck, or even air-force 747. I mean, the diesel-electric generators on Frigates are as large as your average tank...and lets not forget nuclear reactors.

A free electron laser could be useful in taking out missiles, planes, and satelites. Ship or shore bombardment are not likely. Missiles and bullets/rounds have an arched trajectory (and the Earth curves), lasers don't (well, not enough to be noticable). Lasers would also be quite inefficient for such things...too localized. Free electron lasers are also a possibility along mountaintops, but only where a plentiful energy source is available.

I know that both chemical and solid state lasers exist and are in testing by the US (and a select few other nations) today. None are really operational militarially...yet. But they are in testing. We may well see them in war in the next decade or two.

NOTE: If your going to use lasers, remember that they are a very very tactical sort of weapon. They don't quite do the same thing as missiles. If you want to blow up a tank or a building, use a bomb or missile. If you want to bombard shore from close by, try a rail gun. Lasers are best for shooting down missiles, destroying mines/ordinance, and possibly destroying high-flying planes or satelites.

They may also have some use in assassinating high-profile political leaders (in a very public way), or destroying far-off (but in line of sight) radar domes or communications antennie...so don't be afraid to experiment with new uses for them.

Actually, I'm now going after Tesla tech, b/c my nation is oppressive and kinda nuts. See my "War on Water" thread for examples.

What if you put mirrors around your vehicles?

Then you are slightly paranoid, and also begging for the poor sod inside to die from bombing.

Erm....that was a joke, intended to produce laughter.

I know.

I find the image of a reflective tank very amusing, but that's because I have an odd thing where I lack empathy. It's very depressing, but...

Could i get a cite or link on the Tesla stuff?

Go to google, look up Tesla; Weapons.

Actually, I believe the ABL (Air Borne Laser) will be 2-3 megawatts, not 1. Though a lower-power test could be scheduled first (would make a lot of sense).

Here is the overall US plan:

The US Air Force is to develop chemical based lasers. You might think of these as being like rocket engines...you use a chemical reaction to provide power. You may get 5-20 shots off at 500 kilowatts to 5 megawatts...possibly more from an immobile ground station.

Current ideas are for air and possibly space based lasers, though mountaintop lasers are also a possibility. The hope is mostly aimed at balistic missile defense, but also at satelite/space warfare.

The US Army is developing solid state lasers. These are like your laser pointer pen...but much stronger. They typically get tens to hundreads of kilowatts of power and pulse (save energy and release it several times a second) to get more damage out. The army wants to put them on armored vehicles to destroy unexploaded ordinance, shoot down missiles, and for other possible purposes. Basically, you power them with a large diesel generator and maybe hold some charge in a capacitor or inductor.

The US Navy is (supposedly) developing free electron lasers. The idea is to accelerate a particle (usually an electron) to a high fraction the speed of light, then to use electromagnets to "wiggle" it at the appropriate frequency. The advantage is that you can get a lot of power and a fair few frequencies out of it. The disadvantage is that it takes a large source of energy and a lot of room. Fortionately, room and energy are something Navy ships have in abundance...well, not according to the Navy, but at least when compared to your typical tank, truck, or even air-force 747. I mean, the diesel-electric generators on Frigates are as large as your average tank...and lets not forget nuclear reactors.

A free electron laser could be useful in taking out missiles, planes, and satelites. Ship or shore bombardment are not likely. Missiles and bullets/rounds have an arched trajectory (and the Earth curves), lasers don't (well, not enough to be noticable). Lasers would also be quite inefficient for such things...too localized. Free electron lasers are also a possibility along mountaintops, but only where a plentiful energy source is available.

I know that both chemical and solid state lasers exist and are in testing by the US (and a select few other nations) today. None are really operational militarially...yet. But they are in testing. We may well see them in war in the next decade or two.

NOTE: If your going to use lasers, remember that they are a very very tactical sort of weapon. They don't quite do the same thing as missiles. If you want to blow up a tank or a building, use a bomb or missile. If you want to bombard shore from close by, try a rail gun. Lasers are best for shooting down missiles, destroying mines/ordinance, and possibly destroying high-flying planes or satelites. T

hey may also have some use in assassinating high-profile political leaders (in a very public way), or destroying far-off (but in line of sight) radar domes or communications antennie...so don't be afraid to experiment with new uses for them.

The thing is, that's the use a modern tech nation would put them. Lasers as an infantry weapon, realistically, would be as useful as one man trying to hold a machine gun.

Lasers as an infantry weapon, realistically, would be as useful as one man trying to hold a machine gun.

How about this? :twisted:

http://www.fast-rewind.com/predator2.jpg

Lasers as an infantry weapon, realistically, would be as useful as one man trying to hold a machine gun.

How about this? :twisted:

http://www.fast-rewind.com/predator2.jpg


^_^ That might work. I'd hate to be the man standing behind him.

The thing is, that's the use a modern tech nation would put them. Lasers as an infantry weapon, realistically, would be as useful as one man trying to hold a machine gun.

Actually, some machine guns are one man protable (and usable). It would be more like one man trying to hold and use a howitzer...and that would be a very weak laser.

Lasers are NOT efficient machines. In real life research, your more likely to be killed by a laser's power supply then by its beam. Maybe thats because we all think lasers are cool and take electricity for granted...or maybe it is because most of the energy is wasted so the generator produces far more then found in the laser beam.

A hand held laser? I can think of few uses for a realistic one.

-One that blinds enemy troops or sensors (outlawed by international treaty).
-One that finds target ranges, detects heat, or pinpoints a target for a laser guided munition...all very common.
-One that detects speed changes (read: police LIDAR gun)
-One that acts as a neat little pointing device in meetings of various sorts or for playing with the cat at home.

But really, most of that has been done.

The thing is, that's the use a modern tech nation would put them. Lasers as an infantry weapon, realistically, would be as useful as one man trying to hold a machine gun.

Try one man trying to hold and fire a rotary machine gun, once you've taken the powerplant into account.

OCP's are a big danger in RP'ing like this and, despite the best intentions of our host here, I'm not sure that anything he says has changed my opinion on that.

My nation is a modernistic but essentially reality based regime, in a region of similarly minded fellows. I would have a great deal of difficulty RP'ing a war with a medieval tech nation, with a Tolkien-esque nation with a space-based nation (unless, of course they were a modern based Space nation. After all it's MONEY that limits our exploration of space, not technology) OR with a Futuretech nation.

Ortillery is a problem to which a non-Space nation has NO answer. Mecha are reputed to be worth a Division of regular armour. As for Tolkienesque realms - well, I can't see the Valar letting the Elves face futuretech nations without Aule evening the odds. If you think the Elves are scary with magic, imagine them using their Lothlorien cloaking devices, coupled with their excellent aim and eyesight married to a railgun sniper weapon?

Let's keep the genre's seperate - there are enough realms for all to play in a suitable environment!

The thing is, that's the use a modern tech nation would put them. Lasers as an infantry weapon, realistically, would be as useful as one man trying to hold a machine gun.

Try one man trying to hold and fire a rotary machine gun, once you've taken the powerplant into account.

Okay, point made! Thank you, Wazzu and Neralli, for exposing my ignorance of modern machine guns. :?

OCP's are a big danger in RP'ing like this and, despite the best intentions of our host here, I'm not sure that anything he says has changed my opinion on that.

My nation is a modernistic but essentially reality based regime, in a region of similarly minded fellows. I would have a great deal of difficulty RP'ing a war with a medieval tech nation, with a Tolkien-esque nation with a space-based nation (unless, of course they were a modern based Space nation. After all it's MONEY that limits our exploration of space, not technology) OR with a Futuretech nation.

Ortillery is a problem to which a non-Space nation has NO answer. Mecha are reputed to be worth a Division of regular armour. As for Tolkienesque realms - well, I can't see the Valar letting the Elves face futuretech nations without Aule evening the odds. If you think the Elves are scary with magic, imagine them using their Lothlorien cloaking devices, coupled with their excellent aim and eyesight married to a railgun sniper weapon?

Let's keep the genre's seperate - there are enough realms for all to play in a suitable environment!

I didn't really think I would change anyone's minds. :( Not much, at any rate.

It's money that limits almost anything. With sufficient funding, a great deal of things thought impossible would be likely. It is possible now to put someone on Mars. The problem is that it would cost a lot, and should anything go wrong...

Ortillery is very unrealistic. Most wars are fought for conquest. In RL something with the force of ortillery would destroy an entire area, and probably damage the atmosphere.

The problem is that I saw Automagfreek being called out for using something that is possible today, by people who claimed it was future tech. I, myself, got called out for using Soman because, and I quote "A weapon like that isn't possible in this day and age. If it isn't used, it must not exist." Of course, that was a N00b, but still...

The problem isn't technology in anything. It's money, and moralising.

Hey, Roania, I'm all for cutting edge and beyond. I would just object to a so called "modern tech" nation showing up with terrawatt laser armed powered armor shock forces with jetpacks. (All under research, and jetpacks since the '40s!)

I have a post on tesla weapons now, check it out and comment, all!

Lasers as an infantry weapon, realistically, would be as useful as one man trying to hold a machine gun.

How about this? :twisted:

http://www.fast-rewind.com/predator2.jpg

Hmm. That guy's immobile, it's a wonder he's standing with that much on his back, and he'll get spun around and more than likely knocked flat on his ass by the recoil. "Predator" is not a realistic source.

Hmm. That guy's immobile, it's a wonder he's standing with that much on his back, and he'll get spun around and more than likely knocked flat on his ass by the recoil. "Predator" is not a realistic source.

Erm...that was a joke, intended to produce laughter.

Some of ya'll need to get a sense of humor. :?

OOC: Something also to consider with lasers and all energy weapons: power and heat. I always find this funny with people using plasma weapons how there never seems to be any heat problems. You're firing off spheres of super-heated matter using magnetic fields. Even if you somehow have room-temperature superconductors, the heat bleedoff from the plasma itself would at least melt the hand (and face) of the user.

And then there's power. Plasma is hot enough to melt through most (all) known materials. You're talking about the stuff the sun is covered with. So you need a magnetic containment field to hold it. Now to maintain said field requires a pretty decent amount of power. Probably more than could be fit in a handheld object. Even if one could create a compact power storage system capable of storing several megawatts, would you really want to put it into combat? You're talking about several megawatts of energy. Consider what happens if the weapon is damaged and the battery breached.

As for lasers, they are of limited tactical value. You have a laser cannon that cost billions of dollars to develop and build? Well I just beat it with my smoke screen. The reason the US military has cut back on it's laser research in favor of magnetic projectors is because coherent light is affected by atmospheric conditions. Haze, fog, smoke, mist, clouds, etc interfere with the beam. Enough to seriously decrease it's range, if not cause it to lose coherence. That why the vaunted "Tactical Laser" only has a range of maybe seven miles in the Arizona desert. The water vapor in the air causes it to break up after that. And that's in Arizona, land of 0% humidity. Think of how much it'd be effected over a more humid area, like the rest of the planet.

That's my 2 cents, and I'm sticking with it.

Arthur C. Clarke gave us the quote. The original quote is known as Clarke's law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

The key words here are "sufficiently advanced".

The state of the art in laser weapons in real life yields lasers that are just barely capable of damaging an aircraft or missile's electronics. The issue is not money, but power throughput. The energy being emitted is largely lost within an atmosphere due to atmospheric distortion. The laser beam expends almost all of its energy just punching holes through the air.

The U.S. Navy was working on ship-mounted anti-air lasers 15 or so years ago. The weapons required a nuclear-powered ship and several semi-trailer sized containers on the deck of the ship, and they still couldn't solve the atmospheric attenuation issue.

Modern lasers are getting better, and are more and more common, but not as weapons. Mostly they're used as target designators, detection systems, and electronic warfare systems. Once the laser is removed from an atmosphere, the power throughput problem is only reduced, not eliminated. Even collimated down to 1mm at the aperture, the beam would spread to near uselessness (as a weapon) over great distances.

If you're using modern tech, the US Army's proposed new combat armored suit is just fine. The "powered" bit is still a long way from even clinical completion. The current focus of research is on building in nanomachines to provide additional muscle strength- none of which are being considered for deployment within the next 20 years. Money is not the issue. The problem is the necessary breakthroughs in technology and engineering haven't been made yet.

Of course, you can run your country with whatever technology you see fit. Just don't justify it with proposed or possible future equipment based on currently non-existing technology. There is plenty of equipment that fits your theory of "the only reason it doesn't exist is for lack of funding" argument. The ones you listed (lasers, the scorpion battlesuit) don't quite fit the bill.

mod·ern

adj.

1. a. Of or relating to recent times or the present: modern history.
b. Characteristic or expressive of recent times or the present; contemporary or up-to-date: a modern lifestyle; a modern way of thinking.
2. a. Of or relating to a recently developed or advanced style, technique, or technology: modern art; modern medicine.
b. Avant-garde; experimental.

I must admit I tire somewhat of the definition of modern some people seem to operate under. They seem to take part 2b of that definition to the extreme. The whole what if argument that people seem to use on a regular basis.

"If we hadn't stopped researching this when Reagan wasn't President, or if Reagan had begun government funding for this back in 1980, or Nixon had ordered funding into this research, we have it by now, and it'd be modern."

Technically, this seems to fulfill the 2b part of the definition. But it doesn't. For something to be modern and fulfill 2b it has to remain experimental and Avant-garde. That means that experimental modern technology would be just that in a modern tech nation. That's right experimental. Not common place. Certainly not cheap.

What does that mean? A modern tech nation should have JSF's and F-22's, and comparable aircraft, right?

Yes. To some extent. In fact, they can even use them in combat to the same extent the US uses them in combat now.

Now, if you want to be modern tech, I have no problem with ripping the best of the modern technologies from around the world. The US doesn't have the best everything.

So what does that all mean? Lasers are modern tech to the extent they are experimental currently. Lasers are not modern tech as a combat system, except as designators.

Therefore, anyone using Lasers for any sort of combat destructive purpose is, by definition, future tech.

Anyone using '22's or JSF equivalents as their standard frontline combat fighter is future tech. Why? Because it isn't modern.

If you want to use these kinds of technologies, own up to it. Don't go around saying you're modern tech. You are, at best, near-future or postmodern.

(If you wanted to be anal about it, modern, using the artistic definition, is the period around the first half of the twentieth century. Therefore, a modern tech nation should have that tech level. Postmodern would be current technology. But I'm not going to try dealing with that on here.)

This rant is not intended to insult anyone, merely to inform, and object to a practice that happens much too frequently on NationStates.

How about this? :twisted:

http://www.fast-rewind.com/predator2.jpgAnyone who think that's really possible should read the bottom of this (http://world.guns.ru/machine/minigun-e.htm) page.
Ortillery is a problem to which a non-Space nation has NO answer.Sure there're answers. Anti-satellite lasers and high-flying missile-armed interceptors.
Mecha are reputed to be worth a Division of regular armour.:shock: That's ridiculous...In reality they'd be weaker than regular armor...
Ortillery is very unrealistic. Most wars are fought for conquest. In RL something with the force of ortillery would destroy an entire area, and probably damage the atmosphere.No, it's not. It's very useful, too; what better way to destroy your enemy's important buildings (capitol, president's residence, etc.) than a small rod of falling tungsten?
The problem is that I saw Automagfreek being called out for using something that is possible today, by people who claimed it was future tech. I, myself, got called out for using Soman because, and I quote "A weapon like that isn't possible in this day and age. If it isn't used, it must not exist." Of course, that was a N00b, but still...I've even been harassed for using things that not only are used now, but have been for over half a century! :?
Therefore, anyone using Lasers for any sort of combat destructive purpose is, by definition, future tech.No, they're already on some tanks. :D They only destroy optics and eyes, but still...
Anyone using '22's or JSF equivalents as their standard frontline combat fighter is future tech. Why? Because it isn't modern.Many of their features are already used in other aircraft and could easily be applied to a fighter.

And we all know how Murphy shows up at the worst possible times.
It's not Murphy you need to worry about... it's the people who installed the equipment that he was complaining about at the time.

OOC: Something to consider is that there are different kinds of future tech. There's near-future tech, like F22s and JSFs and VTOL Leer jets. Things that not only exist in physical form, but are only a few years away from being deployed. For example, I've set my tech level at about 2010.

The fact that I use VTOLs and F22s does not put me in the same league as someone who uses gravship and plasma weapon uberwank.

OOC:
LTD, or Laser Target Designator, is modern tech. It paints a target with a signature that a bomb can track.
Laser, in the sci-fi sense, a weapon that fires a coherent beam of destructive light, is not modern tech. Scientists haven't made a safe, working prototype of a laser weapon yet, so therefore its future tech, no matter how near the future is. Primitive gauss weaponry is acceptable to me, I've drafted blueprints on how to turn a .38 special into a gauss pistol. It's cumbersome, but effective. Oh, you forgot to add a few 1's to the end of your thread name. :P
Roania, you're obviously future tech, so why bother with this thread?

Do you see what this means?

Yeah. It means, to you, that godmodding is no longer something that applies to you and your über-SDI net armed to the teeth with superlaser batteries.

Sorry, but you're not the only nation in NS. There's 84,489 other nations too, and thousands more with economies as good as yours.

So you don't get to be the only one with hovercrafts, tanks and chemical weapons capable of mass destruction.

I had a mecha program in Raysia, 2010 tech, but I scrapped it.

It is very possible to have mecha in modern tech, especially with electrostricting plastics.

Lasers are modern tech, up to about 3 or 4 Megawatts. Not enough to fight off a cap ship, but it could take out a missile maybe

The US and Isrealis forces have alrightly devoloped a Chemical laser that can and does destroy 140mm Artillery shells in midair to defend componds, they are currently trying to devolop a system that could be fited on the back of a humvee. Time you can expect moble laser anti-Artillery weaponary system is 2010.

Do you see what this means?

Yeah. It means, to you, that godmodding is no longer something that applies to you and your über-SDI net armed to the teeth with superlaser batteries.

Sorry, but you're not the only nation in NS. There's 84,489 other nations too, and thousands more with economies as good as yours.

So you don't get to be the only one with hovercrafts, tanks and chemical weapons capable of mass destruction.

How are chemical weapons godmodding? They exist, they can be used, nay. must be used. An unused weapon is a crime.