NationStates Jolt Archive

DREAD WEAPON SYSTEM: Devastating, Jam-Proof, and Silent (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_DREAD,,00.html?ESRC=army.nl)

http://img86.echo.cx/img86/9066/dreadsystem2kl.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
Maximum firepower: Design for the DREAD Weapon System.

By David Crane
Editor, DefenseReview.com

Imagine a gun with no recoil, no sound, no heat, no gunpowder, no visible firing signature (muzzle flash), and no stoppages or jams of any kind. Now imagine that this gun could fire .308 caliber and .50 caliber metal projectiles accurately at up to 8,000 fps (feet-per-second), featured an infinitely variable/programmable cyclic rate-of-fire (as high as 120,000 rounds-per-minute), and were capable of laying down a 360-degree field of fire. What if you could mount this weapon on any military Humvee (HMMWV), any helicopter/gunship, any armored personnel carrier (APC), and any other vehicle for which the technology were applicable?

That would really be something, wouldn't it? Some of you might be wondering, "how big would it be," or "how much would it weigh"? Others might want to know what it's ammunition capacity would be. These are all good questions, assuming of course that a weapon like this were actually possible.

According to its inventor, not only is it possible, it's already happened. An updated version of the weapon will be available soon. It will arrive in the form of a tactically-configured pre-production anti-personnel weapon firing .308 caliber projectiles (accurately) at 2,500-3000 fps, at a variable/programmable cyclic rate of 5,000-120,000 rpm (rounds-per-minute). The weapon's designer/inventor has informed DefRev that future versions of the weapon will be capable of achieving projectile velocities in the 5,000-8,000 fps range with no difficulty. The technology already exists.

The weapon itself is called the DREAD, or Multiple Projectile Delivery System (MPDS), and it may just be the most revolutionary infantry weapon system concept that DefenseReview has EVER come across.

DREAD: The Skinny

Name:
DREAD Weapon System

Type of Equipment:
Multiple Projectile Delivery System

Killer Features:
Fires .308 caliber and .50 caliber metal projectiles accurately at up to 8,000 fps (feet-per-second)
Features an infinitely variable/programmable cyclic rate-of-fire (as high as 120,000 rounds-per-minute)
Electrically powered and virtually silent
Capable of laying down a 360-degree field of fire
Mountable on any military vehicles, includes humvees and helicopters
Weighs only 28 pounds
Magazine capacities of at least 50,000 rounds of .308 Cal., or 10,000 rounds of .50 Cal. ammo

The DREAD Weapon System is the brainchild of weapons designer/inventor Charles St. George. It will be 40 inches long, 32 inches wide, and 3 inches high (20 inches high with the pintel swivel mount). It will be comprised of only 30 component parts, and will have an empty weight of only 28 pounds. That's right, 28 pounds. The weapon will be capable of rotating 360 degrees and enjoy the same elevation and declination capabilities of any conventional vehicle-mounted gun/weapon.

The first generation DREAD (production version), derived from the tactically-configured pre-production weapon, will most likely be a ground vehicle-mounted anti-personnel weapon. Military Humvees (HMMV's) and other ground vehicles (including Chevy Suburbans) equipped with the DREAD will enjoy magazine capacities of at least 50,000 rounds of .308 Cal., or 10,000 rounds of .50 Cal. ammo.

But, what is the DREAD, really? How does it work? In a sentence, the DREAD is an electrically-powered centrifuge weapon, or centrifuge "gun." So, instead of using self-contained cartridges containing powdered propellant (gunpowder), the DREAD's ammunition will be .308 and .50 caliber round metal balls (steel, tungsten, tungsten carbide, ceramic-coated tungsten, etc...) that will be literally spun out of the weapon at speeds as high as 8000 fps (give or take a few hundred feet-per-second) at rather extreme rpm's, striking their targets with overwhelming and devastating firepower. We're talking about total target saturation, here. All this, of course, makes the DREAD revolutionary in the literal sense, as well as the conceptual one.

According to the DREAD Advantages Sheet, "unlike conventional weapons that deliver a bullet to the target in intervals of about 180 feet, the DREAD's rounds will arrive only 30 thousandths of an inch apart (1/32nd of an inch apart), thereby presenting substantially more mass to the target in much less time than previously possible." This mass can be delivered to the target in 10-round bursts, or the DREAD can be programmed to deliver as many rounds as you want, per trigger-pull. Of course, the operator can just as easily set the DREAD to fire on full-auto, with no burst limiter. On that setting, the number of projectiles sent down range per trigger-pull will rely on the operator's trigger control. Even then, every round is still going right into the target. You see, the DREAD's not just accurate, it's also recoilless. No recoil. None. So, every "fired" round is going right where you aim it.

One of the ammunition types the DREAD will be delivering downrange is the "Collision Cluster Round," or "CCR," that will be used to penetrate hard targets. The Collision Cluster Round (CCR) is explained in more detail on the munitions page of the DREAD Technology White Paper (links below). The DREAD Advantages Sheet also lists all the other advantages that the DREAD Weapon System enjoys over conventional firearms.

And, all this from a weapon that doesn't jam. Remember how at the beginning of the article I wrote "no stoppages or jams"? The DREAD won't jam because, according to its inventor, it can't jam. The DREAD's operating and feeding mechanisms simply don't allow for stoppages or jams to occur. It thus follows that the DREAD Centrifuge Weapon will be the most reliable metallic projectile launcher/ballistic device on the planet. DefRev is not at liberty to publish exactly why the DREAD can't jam, since Mr. St. George hasn't given us permission to describe the gun's operating and feeding mechanisms in any detail.

The only thing the DREAD's operator will really have to worry about is running out of ammo, which isn't likely. Any reasonably skilled gunner (Humvee, APC, Apache attack helicopter, etc.-- doesn't matter) should be able to avoid running through all 50,000 (or more) rounds of .308 Cal. or 10,000 (or more) rounds of .50 Cal. ammo prematurely, especially when he or she can dial down the DREAD's cyclic rate to 5,000 rpm or slower, if necesssary. Even if it becomes necessary to increase the DREAD's magazine capacity to upwards of 100,000 rounds (.308 Cal.) or 20,0000 rounds (.50 Cal.), and run the weapon all day and all night for weeks on end, this will have absolutely no effect whatsoever (positive or negative) on the reliability or durability of the weapon system. The DREAD is both heatless and frictionless, and doesn't generate any high pressures. So, there's virtually no wear and tear on the system, no matter how many rounds are fired through it back-to-back, even if it's run constantly on full-auto at 120,000 rpm, the whole time.

Here's the kicker: because it's electrically powered and doesn't use any powdered propellant for it's operation, the DREAD Centrifuge Weapon is virtually silent (no sound signature), except for the supersonic "crack" of the metal balls breaking the sound barrier when they're launched. This makes the direction that the rounds are coming from, and their point of origin (firing source), very difficult for enemy forces to identify. It also allows the operator to communicate easily with his team, or with his command structure, while he's still firing on the enemy (with the DREAD). With the DREAD, he won't have to fight to communicate over his own weapon's firing report. And, since the gun doesn't generate any muzzle flash or heat (it's heatless and frictionless, remember?), it doesn't produce any flash signature or heat signature. So, identifying the gun itself with IR (infrared) sensors will be impossible. The vehicle that the DREAD is mounted on is the only thing that will display a heat signature. That leaves you with a difficult-to-detect/locate weapon with a virtually endless suppy of ammo. Even if the DREAD-equipped vehicle does get identified and fired upon by the enemy, the risk of a catastrophic explosion from a bullet strike on the ammunition supply is zero, because the DREAD's ammunition doesn't contain any propellant. There's no gunpowder onboard to blow up. That just leaves the gas tank (vehicle's). Nothing's foolproof.

There's more. Since the DREAD/MPDS (Multiple Projectile Delivery System) is a centrifuge weapon, projectile velocity can be adjusted instantly back and forth between lethal and less-lethal/non-lethal modes. This means it can be utilized just as effectively for embassy security and peacekeeping roles. As an embassy security weapon, the less-lethal/non lethal mode would most likely be the way to go, in most cases. Less-lethal is usually adequate for any crowd control or riot control situations. However, let's say the crowd starts storming the gates, and now presents a lethal threat to the occupants inside. Well, just pull your Marines inside, switch your remotely-operated battery of DREAD's on over to lethal mode, and make survival above ground impossible for anyone outside the embassy. No one gets in. Same thing goes for military base security. Remote DREAD Centrifuge Gun Pods can be outfitted with heat and motion sensors, and left in unmanned areas. These remote pods can be either human-operated, or pre-programmed with both less-lethal/non-lethal and lethal protocols that will function automatically and not even require human operation. Mobile robotic platforms, including remote-controlled Unmanned Ground Combat Vehicles (UGCV's), could also be outfitted with DREAD systems. And, the list goes on. The technology application possibilities/potential uses are virtually endless.

So, what's the upshot? It's DefenseReview's opinion that, if the DREAD Weapon System works as advertised, it will have a profound impact on U.S. infantry warfare capabilities. It has the potential to literally change the way we fight on the ground, and perhaps even in the air. No question, it will revolutionize both ground and air vehicular armament and firepower capabilities. The DREAD will have a similarly profound impact on U.S. embassy security and military base perimeter security capabilities. This paradigm shift in firepower isn't limited to the ground and air, either. The DREAD's complete lack of recoil will allow it to be fired from space-based platforms, i.e. satellites, without knocking them off of their respective orbital paths. Zero recoil, plus 8,000 fps projectile speeds, 5,000-120,000 rpm capability, and huge on-board ammunition supplies, equals a viable and relatively inexpensive option for satellite defense (and enemy-satellite neutralization), and possibly even a fast-realizable armament solution/alternative for a U.S. Space-based defense network.

Leader Propulsion Systems (LPS) just informed DefRev that it has signed up with a large U.S. "defense entity" (i.e., a large U.S. defense contractor) to fully develop the DREAD technology for both lethal and less-lethal applications. This strategic partnership will also enable Leader to begin developing a family of gas-operated lightweight weapons chambered in .50 BMG (12.7x99mm), .338 Lapua, .300 Winchester Magnum and 7.62x51mm Nato (.308 Win.). According to Leader, this new development program will result in a family of weapons that will utilize, according to the company, a "revolutionary" and proprietary recoil attenuation/mitigation system. This system will also be used in a man-portable 25mm lightweight weapon system that LPS will also be developing. Defense Review is not currently at liberty to disclose any additional information on the DREAD development program to our readers. However, once we are, we'll inform our readers immediately, and continue to do so regarding any new significant developments, so stay tuned.

About the Author: David Crane is a military defense industry analyst and consultant, and the owner/editor-in-chief of DefenseReview.com.

If you've ever been around when a centrifuge decides to self-destruct because of a worn spindle or an unbalanced load, you wouldn't want to be around that thing when it reaches its Mean Time Between Failure.

:eek: thats amazing! and scary...

Ah, and here I thought they were finally putting near-dead people in Sarcophagi and let Dreadnoughts stalk the battlefield.

Rather die for the Emperor than live for yourself!

I just wish people would waste as much time and money on research that has nothing to do with killing each other.

That's pretty cool, but like WL said, if that thing gets unbalanced or something and decides to disintegrate it'll lauch shrapnell in all directions at extremely high speed. At least an M60 or M2 doesn't explode and take out your vehicle. Provided they can keep it from disintegrating though it sounds like an amazing weapon.

wow

If you've ever been around when a centrifuge decides to self-destruct because of a worn spindle or an unbalanced load, you wouldn't want to be around that thing when it reaches its Mean Time Between Failure.
That's an area the article didn't address. One would hope they had planned for that possibility.

This just occured to me. What's going to spin the projectiles? An electric motor perhaps? How much power will be required to drive such a weapon? Is it even feasable to run such a weapon off of a battery?

This just occured to me. What's going to spin the projectiles? An electric motor perhaps? How much power will be required to drive such a weapon? Is it even feasable to run such a weapon off of a battery?
electromagnets i guess. doesn't take much power but can really get the acceleration up.

problem there would be you need the ammo to be magnetically charged, so they could be diverted on their way to the target by another magnetic field...

i see you're a subscriber to military.com. they send a lot more stuff than i would have thought.

the ammunition for that thing looks like a golf ball. and modern military tech is really kinda starting to freak me out. have you seen out first wave of, for lack of a better term, merciless automotons? them foot and a half tall tank treads with guns? freaky shit, i tell you what.

i see you're a subscriber to military.com. they send a lot more stuff than i would have thought.

the ammunition for that thing looks like a golf ball. and modern military tech is really kinda starting to freak me out. have you seen out first wave of, for lack of a better term, merciless automotons? them foot and a half tall tank treads with guns? freaky shit, i tell you what.
Yep. Soon we'll have all kinds of weird sci-fi movie props fighting our wars for us. That'll be cool.

Yep. Soon we'll have all kinds of weird sci-fi movie props fighting our wars for us. That'll be cool.
personally, i fear the day when our armies are no longer men. the idea that our own may die makes the decision of war a more difficult one. without that safety, there is little holding the US government back. besides which, how much more "evil empire" do you get than hordes of murderous androids?

Another problem. That's got a platter inside that is spinning 120,000 rpm around a spindle, according to the company pdf.

Now, remember what your physics teacher taught you about torque and precession. I bet it would be a real treat to see which way it tilts and twists when the vehicle goes up and down hills, or when the user tries to point the weapon in a particular direction.

personally, i fear the day when our armies are no longer men. the idea that our own may die makes the decision of war a more difficult one. without that safety, there is little holding the US government back. besides which, how much more "evil empire" do you get than hordes of murderous androids?
On the bright side it may encourage us to intervene in places like Sudan. People will more readily accept a war when our boys don't come home in coffins. I'm not against war if it's done for a good cause.

Another problem. That's got a platter inside that is spinning 120,000 rpm around a spindle, according to the company pdf.

Now, remember what your physics teacher taught you about torque and precession. I bet it would be a real treat to see which way it tilts and twists when the vehicle goes up and down hills, or when the user tries to point the weapon in a particular direction.


Its likely going to have some sort of gyroscope stabilizing sytem.

Are you guys ACTUALLY interested in this? Is it something that begets 'respect', or even 'admirance'? What is it: the wonderful technique, the way the numbers and data are presented, the exhilerance of 'lethality'? I'm not being sarcastic here, I'd really like to know... However much I don't understand how this may be positively received, I'm a tolerant human being and in the interest of tolerance, one needs to get to know his fellow man - even if that fellow man has a lust for lethality and killing...

Are you guys ACTUALLY interested in this? Is it something that begets 'respect', or even 'admirance'? What is it: the wonderful technique, the way the numbers and data are presented, the exhilerance of 'lethality'? I'm not being sarcastic here, I'd really like to know... However much I don't understand how this may be positively received, I'm a tolerant human being and in the interest of tolerance, one needs to get to know his fellow man - even if that fellow man has a lust for lethality and killing...
I'm a big fan of weapons. I like the technology, the power, the aesthetics. I own weapons. One firearm, several very nice edged weapons. I've never killed anyone and wouldn't do so except to defend myself or people I care about. I just like weapons.

Hmmm, looks like one of those doo-hickies which make murdering human beings easier.

Are you guys ACTUALLY interested in this? Is it something that begets 'respect', or even 'admirance'? What is it: the wonderful technique, the way the numbers and data are presented, the exhilerance of 'lethality'? I'm not being sarcastic here, I'd really like to know... However much I don't understand how this may be positively received, I'm a tolerant human being and in the interest of tolerance, one needs to get to know his fellow man - even if that fellow man has a lust for lethality and killing...
I'm not a fan of killing, having seen enough of that up close and personal, but if war is inevitable, getting it over and done with as rapidly as possible is an admirable and worthwhile goal. Getting it over and done with minimal casualties to your own people and to civlians is admirable and worthwhile as well. I'm all for any new weapons system that will serve these goals.

I'm not a fan of killing, having seen enough of that up close and personal, but if war is inevitable, getting it over and done with as rapidly as possible is an admirable and worthwhile goal. Getting it over and done with minimal casualties to your own people and to civlians is admirable and worthwhile as well. I'm all for any new weapons system that will serve these goals.

'Admirable' isn't exactly the word I was looking for, although I respect your feeling on the subject.

'Admirable' isn't exactly the word I was looking for, although I respect your feeling on the subject.
Um ... getting a war over with quickly with minimal casualties isn't "admirable?" Hmmm.

DREAD WEAPON SYSTEM: Devastating, Jam-Proof, and Silent (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_DREAD,,00.html?ESRC=army.nl)

http://img86.echo.cx/img86/9066/dreadsystem2kl.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
Maximum firepower: Design for the DREAD Weapon System.
More than that, it also looks like the Starship Enterprise.
I'm sure if you look close enough, you'll see Kirk running around in there chasing a green skinned alien woman.

I'm sure if you look close enough, you'll see Kirk running around in there chasing a green skinned alien woman.
Maybe that's what drives the centrifuge.

Um ... getting a war over with quickly with minimal casualties isn't "admirable?" Hmmm.

Choosing between two evils is still choosing evil. 3000 years old, but still true. Sometimes one might not have a choice - but 99% of the times that "there is no choice", is mostly that people don't want to look harder for a solution. Most often those people earn or otherwise profit from war, and don't have to fight themselves. And, exuse me for my obvious "ignorance" (some gun-lovers call me ignorant, hah), but I still believe in the utter evilness of war - in all possible possibilities. One people's war for freedom, is another's ethnic cleansing. It's all about perspective.

Maybe that's what drives the centrifuge.
Either that or falling cats with buttered toast tied to their backs.

Maybe that's what drives the centrifuge.
she'd have to be a very impressive specimen of green-skinned alien female to get Kirk to waddle that fast!

she'd have to be a very impressive specimen of green-skinned alien female to get Kirk to waddle that fast!
She promised him a threesom with Ohura

Choosing between two evils is still choosing evil. 3000 years old, but still true. Sometimes one might not have a choice - but 99% of the times that "there is no choice", is mostly that people don't want to look harder for a solution. Most often those people earn or otherwise profit from war, and don't have to fight themselves. And, exuse me for my obvious "ignorance" (some gun-lovers call me ignorant, hah), but I still believe in the utter evilness of war - in all possible possibilities. One people's war for freedom, is another's ethnic cleansing. It's all about perspective.
though i disagree with you in a very basic and defeatist way, this is well put. i won't question the validity of what you say, merely a lack of pragmatism involved with this belief. personally, i've generally given up on men not killing each other.

though i disagree with you in a very basic and defeatist way, this is well put. i won't question the validity of what you say, merely a lack of pragmatism involved with this belief. personally, i've generally given up on men not killing each other.

I understand... There's lots of evidence to support your case, sadly... But I don't think it's a lack of pragmatism, though - that's what most people say, but that don't make it true. I'm pretty smart, and I'm pretty wise (if I may say so) - and I've observed individuals, people, peoples, groups of people, nations, etc. on a nigh-professional basis - and I still can't see any acceptable (as in "unpropagandistic") 'justification' for war. But I still do respect your feelings - I just do not agree on the reason you give for mine.

Choosing between two evils is still choosing evil. 3000 years old, but still true. Sometimes one might not have a choice - but 99% of the times that "there is no choice", is mostly that people don't want to look harder for a solution. Most often those people earn or otherwise profit from war, and don't have to fight themselves. And, exuse me for my obvious "ignorance" (some gun-lovers call me ignorant, hah), but I still believe in the utter evilness of war - in all possible possibilities. One people's war for freedom, is another's ethnic cleansing. It's all about perspective.
I understand your aversion to conflict. I don't much like it either. I just happen to believe that as long as there is greed and envy and jealotry and hatred there will be those who resort to force to get what they want. Sometimes the only way to handle this is by meeting force with greater force. All things being equal, I would rather be a citizen of a democracy which sometimes goes to war, and with the best equipment available.

that big gun sounds scary!!!! :(

I'm not a fan of killing, having seen enough of that up close and personal, but if war is inevitable, getting it over and done with as rapidly as possible is an admirable and worthwhile goal. Getting it over and done with minimal casualties to your own people and to civlians is admirable and worthwhile as well. I'm all for any new weapons system that will serve these goals.


Ok, does that mean you are a fan of WMD?

"WMD are Great!"

Ok, does that mean you are a fan of WMD?

"WMD are Great!"
I love WMD. Especially Strategic bioweapons. Antibiotic resistant strains of plague and genetically modified smallpox are fantastic. I'm a big fan!

Choosing between two evils is still choosing evil. 3000 years old, but still true. Sometimes one might not have a choice - but 99% of the times that "there is no choice", is mostly that people don't want to look harder for a solution. Most often those people earn or otherwise profit from war, and don't have to fight themselves. And, exuse me for my obvious "ignorance" (some gun-lovers call me ignorant, hah), but I still believe in the utter evilness of war - in all possible possibilities. One people's war for freedom, is another's ethnic cleansing. It's all about perspective.

Aristotle believed that Virtue was the mean between two extreme states, or the balance between opposite Vices. Here, on one hand we have Brutality, and on the other we have Pacifism. You have already chosen to fully embrace Pacifism and you see anything somewhat less then that extreme as "evil." I can not stress enough how misguided this perspective is and in all honesty it is no better a position to take then that of the most vile of Warmongers. You expect humanity to abandon self-interest, the core of what makes a Human a Human, conscieous individuality and the drive to benefit one's self as a individual. How can your faculties of reason justify such a delusion? That someday Humans will cease to be Human?

Mark my words, as long as Man lives War will not end. With this in mind the duty that falls to Humanity is to virtuously apply this.

You have three choices; each one has a segment of grey in it. On the left side we have black and grey, on the right side we have white and grey, and in the middle we have the mean of grey. Anyone to the right of center will be walked on by anyone to the left of center. These people to the right (the Pacifists who commonly live in a state of denial) have only one defense, the people in the middle who are WILLING to do violence on the behalf of others but UNWILLING to walk on anyone else. THAT is the path of Virtue. Those people in the middle can only exist as long as they stay on a level higher then the people on the left, if the tide of darkness rises just a little above the dam in the middle the light will be flooded. As long as the center stays higher then the tide on the left you are safe to sleep easy at night. THAT is why we pour money into "defense spending," because the dam can't go high enough and you damn well shouldn't want it to stop.

I am not saying that America is one and only perfectly virtuous wall but as far as you and me are concerned it is the best damn thing around all politics aside.

The problem you see is that people right of center (people like you) thinks that the people in the middle are just like the people beyond them. After all, they certainly look grey, they like their guns just like the people on the left, etc, and the result is that you fear or hate them. You wish they would go away simply because they remind you of the people who wish to kill you. Your only defense is denial; denial of reality, denial of Human Nature and consequently denial of yourself. What is more is that you KNOW you aren't safe, you are cool with airbags because you KNOW accidents can happen, you are cool with fire alarms and fire extinguishers because you KNOW that fires can happen, you are cool with first aid kits because you KNOW you may need them, but damnit you aren't cool with guns, Why? Because they remind you that there are violent people out there. People that deep down inside you, in the part of you that you try to deny exists, you share something with. THAT is something you would NOT like to be reminded of.

My advice to anyone to right of the mean, take a little freaking responsibility for yourself and your family. To those to the left of the mean, fear the Deadly "Dread" Weapons System! :D

I'd rather have this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021020-laser1.htm

Turning a Buck Rogers fantasy into reality, Southern California defense companies are on the verge of building a laser weapon small enough to fit on a fighter jet, yet powerful enough to destroy an enemy aircraft at the blink of an eye.

After more than four decades of doggedly pursuing the elusive technology, engineers working in at least three laboratories around the Southland have been quietly developing high-powered, solid-state lasers that some defense analysts say could revolutionize warfare.

IIRC, "Flywheel" weapons are nothing new. Spin up a flywheel to insane RPMs then drop a marble onto it to be expelled at a tangent at insane velocities. No biggie except for the gyroscopic & catestrophic failure issues...

Now, if you rotate and suspend the flywheel in a magnetic field (no friction/bearing point) it becomes even more interesting... a (comparatively) poor-man's rail-gun.

Seems to me that rather than 9mm or 12.7mm balls, something more along the lines of 4.3mm at hypervelocities would be more interesting and controllable in an AP weapon.

Its likely going to have some sort of gyroscope stabilizing sytem.
Problem is, it IS a gyroscope. Once that bad boy is spinning, it would take all hell to pivot it in opposition to the axis of rotation.

Ok, does that mean you are a fan of WMD?

"WMD are Great!"
WMD means "Weapons of Mass Destruction," which means the weapons are indiscriminate, which translates to large numbers of civilian casualties, which is unacceptable.

Choosing between two evils is still choosing evil.
*snip*
And, exuse me for my obvious "ignorance" (some gun-lovers call me ignorant, hah), but I still believe in the utter evilness of war - in all possible possibilities. One people's war for freedom, is another's ethnic cleansing. It's all about perspective.
That first sentence reminds me of the film Swordfish. I was surprised to learn when asking around after I saw it that many people would not kill that hypothetical child to cure known disease. Not choosing because they are both "evil" is still a choice, which will often lead to more "evil" (I really hate that word).

A caseless, foolproof autocannon?

I love these R&D guys!

That first sentence reminds me of the film Swordfish. I was surprised to learn when asking around after I saw it that many people would not kill that hypothetical child to cure known disease. Not choosing because they are both "evil" is still a choice, which will often lead to more "evil" (I really hate that word).
Good on ya.

You are well on your way to understanding Harm Theory Ethics. Always choose the action which has the least overall harmful outcome.

You kill the armed robber when he is robbing you because the armed robber is much more likely to kill someone else after he kills you than you are after you kill him - no matter how much you despise killing. IMO If other people die because you fail to stop the predator when you had the chance, and you simply chose not to (out of some misguided sense of "good & evil"), it is YOUR fault.

If it sounds too good to be true than it probably is.

There are lots of sites out there with vague descriptions of "free energy" machines too, doesnt make them realistic or practical or even honest.

I didnt get the impression from reading that site that this idea had actually been built, much less tested.

WMD means "Weapons of Mass Destruction," which means the weapons are indiscriminate, which translates to large numbers of civilian casualties, which is unacceptable.

WMD do get wars done quickly, with minimum civilian casualties, is that not the logic used to defend the ww2 nukings of Japan? They seem to fit your (earlier described) criteria for a weapon system to make you happy.

Surely 'large numbers of civ. casualties' is better than 'huge numbers of civilian casualties'?

If it sounds too good to be true than it probably is.

There are lots of sites out there with vague descriptions of "free energy" machines too, doesnt make them realistic or practical or even honest.

I didnt get the impression from reading that site that this idea had actually been built, much less tested.

How is this a free energy(perpetual motion) machine? Unless you are talking about the recoil part, I fail to see how anyone is claiming that this is a free energy machine. And even as far as recoil goes, there are plenty of ways to offset recoil without violating any laws, gas porting for instance.

I wanted to let this die out, but hey...

Aristotle believed that Virtue was the mean between two extreme states, or the balance between opposite Vices. Here, on one hand we have Brutality, and on the other we have Pacifism. You have already chosen to fully embrace Pacifism and you see anything somewhat less then that extreme as "evil." I can not stress enough how misguided this perspective is and in all honesty it is no better a position to take then that of the most vile of Warmongers. You expect humanity to abandon self-interest, the core of what makes a Human a Human, conscieous individuality and the drive to benefit one's self as a individual. How can your faculties of reason justify such a delusion? That someday Humans will cease to be Human?

My point was not to automatically choose pacifism. Did you actually read what I argued? My point was, that most people choose too FAST. Hence the fact that 99% of the time that people argue "there is no choice" is because they want to have their solution executed, be it war OR peace - nowadays, sadly, it seems to be more war than peace. But in the end, that's not my point.
The point you try to make is my belief exactly. As a buddhist, I believe that most evil in the world comes from "need" - need in things or concepts that are most often unnecessary, or rather "unessential". In my belief, action is corruption: the best plan you can try to come up with to "save the world" will ultimately fail because the goal will supplant the means, and that, IMO, is the true meaning of "evil". Whether that goal is "peace" or "war" doesn't matter.
I, too, walk the path of "mediance" (if that's a correct word), and I will always try to make the opposite point to "balance the scales". Here (and in other threads), that point was: the clinical approach people have on "war". Something that can be captured in numbers, in "cold, hard facts". IMO, it can't be captured as such because it is a "valued" concept, seen differently by almost any party involved. And it cannot EVER be seen as "clinical", a "necessary evil" to root out "more evil", because that is all subjective matter. One people's evil warlord is another's saviour in dire times. Who are you to make that decision? You need MORE perspective, and MORE tolerance. Oh, and for the record: tolerance, my American friends, is NOT the same as "taking crap from everyone".
Seeing as how your accusation of "extremity" on my person IMO no longer stands, I shall let that oh-so cliché "misguided" part slide.
The point of self-interest: you call that a core part of human nature... Perhaps, but that does not imply that every "human" experiences said self-interest the same way. Nor does it mean that everyone should. And self-interest is NOT the same as "individuality". Individuality is a construct, much like "citizen" or "marriage", it's not part of human nature, not like self-interest is. In many cases, "self-interest" is an immersal of a person in society, not as an "individual" but as "part of society". Society, in fact, allows a single person too make the most of his/her personal strengths and allows to greatly nullify that person's weaknesses (through other people's strenghts). And, as such "the drive to benefit one's self as an individual" can have MANY forms, including - oh God no! - an immersal in society, an altruistic form. Not everyone is naturally greedy, however much many liberal scientists from the sixties and seventies wanted that to be true.

Mark my words, as long as Man lives War will not end. With this in mind the duty that falls to Humanity is to virtuously apply this.

You're not the first to "discover" that, nor will you be the last. The difficulty, however, is the concept of "virtue", but I guess you already knew that.

You have three choices; each one has a segment of grey in it. On the left side we have black and grey, on the right side we have white and grey, and in the middle we have the mean of grey. Anyone to the right of center will be walked on by anyone to the left of center. These people to the right (the Pacifists who commonly live in a state of denial) have only one defense, the people in the middle who are WILLING to do violence on the behalf of others but UNWILLING to walk on anyone else. THAT is the path of Virtue. Those people in the middle can only exist as long as they stay on a level higher then the people on the left, if the tide of darkness rises just a little above the dam in the middle the light will be flooded. As long as the center stays higher then the tide on the left you are safe to sleep easy at night. THAT is why we pour money into "defense spending," because the dam can't go high enough and you damn well shouldn't want it to stop.

I am not saying that America is one and only perfectly virtuous wall but as far as you and me are concerned it is the best damn thing around all politics aside.

So, in your opinion; there's always "evil" and "good", and "something in between". Who's being "extreme" now? There is NO good, and NO evil. There is only want and need and people who are willing to kill for that, and people who are not. The only "evil" and "good" is the application of said willingness in the eye of a beholder - subjective, that is. That's what I meant with "choosing between two evils". You believe, that the choice you make is "for the good of some/many/all". I, on the other hand, KNOW it's the wrong choice - but that does not mean I won't take the choice if need be. It's all about understanding that you made a wrong choice, even when there was no other choice. That is the essence of the buddhist concept of compassion.

The problem you see is that people right of center (people like you) thinks that the people in the middle are just like the people beyond them. After all, they certainly look grey, they like their guns just like the people on the left, etc, and the result is that you fear or hate them. You wish they would go away simply because they remind you of the people who wish to kill you. Your only defense is denial; denial of reality, denial of Human Nature and consequently denial of yourself. What is more is that you KNOW you aren't safe, you are cool with airbags because you KNOW accidents can happen, you are cool with fire alarms and fire extinguishers because you KNOW that fires can happen, you are cool with first aid kits because you KNOW you may need them, but damnit you aren't cool with guns, Why? Because they remind you that there are violent people out there. People that deep down inside you, in the part of you that you try to deny exists, you share something with. THAT is something you would NOT like to be reminded of.

My advice to anyone to right of the mean, take a little freaking responsibility for yourself and your family. To those to the left of the mean, fear the Deadly "Dread" Weapons System! :D

This is a good point, although I don't understand how I could be "right" of any "mean". I don't see society as "divided" like you. But that doesn't mean you're wrong, IMO.
Let me clarify why I'm not "cool" with guns: I do not like guns (or war, especially the 'pre-emptive' kind), because it allows certain people to inflict their will, their need (see above for what I think of "need") on others, a.k.a. to put them down. Said people can only react (in your opinion) by grabbing guns themselves and trying to "restore" the status-quo. See, that's the problem. They don't: instead, "human nature" allows for people with guns to go BEYOND the status-quo, and in turn put the other party down, all because "they deserve it" or "they hit us first" (you can almost hear them crying for their mommy!). The starting-problem is this: need. It's not guns themselves, but what guns turn people into - it works as a catalyst, a means to "fulfill those desires we ALL feel" (a generalization that I also don't believe in, but I guess you already knew that). The part of society that can handle guns (or war, for that matter) in a responsible way is decidedly smaller than the part of society that DOES handle guns (or war). And THAT, my friend, is my problem. A gun is for many people not just "a wonder of engineering" (*shudder*) or "some metal tube with a handle", it's also a symbolic weapon, a means to "get back at whoever hurts me" or "get what I deserve" etc. It's a mentality problem. IMO, if people WERE responsible with each other, guns (and war) would prove to be a lot less "necessary" than to seem to be now.

Good on ya.

You are well on your way to understanding Harm Theory Ethics. Always choose the action which has the least overall harmful outcome.

You kill the armed robber when he is robbing you because the armed robber is much more likely to kill someone else after he kills you than you are after you kill him - no matter how much you despise killing. IMO If other people die because you fail to stop the predator when you had the chance, and you simply chose not to (out of some misguided sense of "good & evil"), it is YOUR fault.


Indeed, but the problem is the application of that "virtuous action". Who are you to know that a robber is going to kill again/more/once? You can't see in the future. And, by all that is holy, you DO NOT KNOW that you will be "less likely to kill" than someone else! How can you say that? Ever done so? Ever actually destroyed someone's son or daughter, someone's mother or father? But hey, "it was for the good of others, I think - no, I'm sure. Yeah, I'm sure. Hell yeah!" That's BS. Some people kill, some don't. Some robbers kill, some don't. Some housefathers kill their entire family with a shotgun, some don't. And you CANNOT know upfront WHO will kill and WHEN. That, my friend, is misguided! Anyone can be a killer given the right circumstances.

If you get the chance to stop (aka kill) a "predator" (nice choice of words) and you don't, that's because you do not believe he will automatically continue his "evil" ways. And the other way round. Both are "misguided" senses of good and evil, and all because we don't know what actually WILL happen in the future. Some believe in redemption (Christ, for instance), some don't.

Your point reminds me somewhat of how wolves were treated in the Middle Ages and Modern times. In those days, wolves were not just killed - they were hanged, burned, buried alive, dismembered, maimed, and that was all perfectly "rational". After all, they kill people, don't they? Turns out they don't quite as much as believed. One should at all times KNOW that many aspects, many reasons for killing, are rationalizations and sublimations of weaknesses and fears - and that many (not all!) are quite unnecessary.