NationStates Jolt Archive

What kind of weapons will be used in the future? Do you think we'll be using lasers, or if there is any conflict it'll be a nuclear war? Thoughts please. with suger on top.:p

Probably much of the same really. Crazy electronic equipment is just far too expensive to supply soldiers in mass numbers.

Actually, the sugar on top comment is more accurate than you might think. As we've learnt in Iraq defeating an army is no longer enough, you now have to make sure you can control the population at large. Thus, every future conflict will be preceded by high-fat snacks being airdropped into the country to devlop obesity amongst the population. Suitably fattened, the people become less mobile, more lazy and now present much larger targets.

http://www.loonyboi.com/blog/images/hypnotoad-thumb.jpg
Yup, that oughtta cover it.
*nods*

Guns. It will still always be guns. They will probably become more light weight and have more force, but it will still be guns. The power requirement of any laser that can be used offensively is too large to be portable.

Probably much of the same really. Crazy electronic equipment is just far too expensive to supply soldiers in mass numbers
They probably said that the original guns would never be mass-supplied either, but they were wrong.

I'd say some sort of Lasers, on the basis the world isn't destroyed too soon, that and space-ships will be the navy of space.
In event of apocalypse i'd say the biggest sort of rock/pie.
I have no idea, maybe there won't be any weapons at all.

Most likely we will keep using firearms into the foreseeable future. They're simple, cheap and effective, relatively speaking. Most of the advances we'll probably see will be on improving the firearm: caseless ammunition for instance.

On a larger scale we may see further forays into magnetic-accelerator weapons (coilguns and railguns for example) and some laser technology. However at this point all we have are bulky and relatively impractical prototypes for both kind of weapon, making it likely that we won't see them fielded in large numbers for some time now. They have applications, but the roles that they would fill are already occupied by effective, tried and true technology. Until the need arises, or they find a way to make these weapons more practical, you can count out railguns and ray-guns for the time being.

Guns. It will still always be guns. They will probably become more light weight and have more force, but it will still be guns. The power requirement of any laser that can be used offensively is too large to be portable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon
Tactical considerations & problems
Lasers have five main advantages over conventional weaponry:

Laser beams travel at the speed of light, unlike projectile weapons, so there is no need in terrestrial applications to aim ahead to allow for the target moving while the shot travels as the transit time over such distances is virtually zero.
The speed of delivery means that the target has no chance to detect or evade, as is the case with enemy aircraft targeted with anti-aircraft missiles.
Light's short transit time also nearly eliminates the influence of gravity, so long range projection does not require compensation for such.
Some lasers run on electricity which can be cheaply generated, reducing the need for expensive and finite ammunition. However, building portable electric power sources of sufficient energy capacity is a problem.
Because light has a practically nil ratio (exactly 1 / c) of momentum to energy, lasers produce negligible recoil.

I figure conventional weaponry is not going to change an awful lot in the near future. Kinetic impact weaponry is a mature technology that gives us a wide variety of options, and chemical propellant tech is likewise safe, effective and cheap.

Energy weapons just don't cut it. Lasers are delicate maintenance and power hogs. Particle Beams are just crappy in atmosphere, with ranges measured in, so far, inches, and need even more power than the laser. Lasers will likely only be used in point-defence armaments, where as-light speed weapons provide a significant advantage.

Railguns and Coilguns offer more promise, for vehicle mounted armaments, as they can impart muzzle velocities in excess of what can currently be acheived by chemical propellants. But the power and maintenance requirements, weight, and length will keep them out of infantry hands for the forseeable future.

Artillery is going to change dramatically, though. For one thing, range will soon become infinite, as POBS (Partial Orbit Bombardment Systems) become possible. Artillery in the US will be able to strike, say, Islamabad.

Similarly, Orbital armaments will be deployed, enabling very rapid strikes at enemy targets on the ground without risking aircraft.

However, countering this will be as-light point defence systems, capable of shooting down shells in flight. The ultimate effect will be dependent on how effective the point defence is; if it is very effective, aircraft and long range arty will cease to be economically viable. If it is only marginally effective, large targets (such as surface ships) will suddenly stop being usable. The true effect will likely be somewhere between these two extremes.

I don't see much change to the infantryman's weapons in the near future, as I said, save perhaps the use of heavier caliber armaments to counter the introduction of advanced body armour worldwide. Major changes will not come until w start to fight in exotic environments - the moon, Mars, and space.

probably much of the same, I don't think there will be that many wars between countries anyway, mostly counter-guerrilla warfare and civil wars. I suspect that the main advances will be made in the field of intelligence and reconnaissance, highly precise weaponry and pies.

Going to go with the "sticks and stones" answer. After we nuke ourselves back into the stone age of course.

*snip*

There's no denying the advantages of energy weapons. The problem lies in developing the weapon itself. Right now, energy weapons with possible military applications are little more than oversized laser pointers, and EAT energy.

In the somewhat distant future, maybe we'll advance to a point where we can use lasers as a practical weapon. Not now though.

There's no denying the advantages of energy weapons. The problem lies in developing the weapon itself. Right now, energy weapons with possible military applications are little more than oversized laser pointers, and EAT energy.

In the somewhat distant future, maybe we'll advance to a point where we can use lasers as a practical weapon. Not now though.
*Sigh* Didn't you read the link?

Recent studies have shown great progress in advanced laser technology. On July 15th 2007, a rebuilt F-4 Phantom was succesfully destroyed over White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico using a powerful laser beam...These problems, which severely limit laser weapon practicality at present, might be offset by:

Cheap high-temperature superconductors to make the weapon more efficient.
A new method of conveniently storing and/or generating large amounts of electricity needed to power the weapon
It might be so in the future.

*Sigh* Didn't you read the link?

It might be so in the future.

Hmm...

Still sounds like it will be very expensive.

That won't stop the US government though...if they can spend 100,000 dollars a shell on artillery shells that can THINK, then they can sink us further into debt by pursuing this <_<.

That won't stop the US government though...if they can spend 100,000 dollars a shell on artillery shells that can THINK, then they can sink us further into debt by pursuing this <_<.
We're already in debt, at least this way we don't have to spend money on bullets.

Could try getting the government to gamble at a casino to make more money,that or stage bank robberies in every other country.
Or we could get the US government to invest in those infomericials that come on late at night! Those nice people wouldn't lie to us, would they?

We're already in debt, at least this way we don't have to spend money on bullets.

Could try getting the government to gamble at a casino to make more money,that or stage bank robberies in every other country.

They've already got the microwave trucks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/v-mads.htm
http://www.defense-update.com/products/a/ads.htm
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=df9_1185645340&c=1

Nano-engineered weapons

A brief-case could carry enough nanobots to hold enough poison to kill every person on earth.

Once we have self replicating molecular manufacturing production costs essentially drop to the price of the materials, roughly $1 per kg of material produced, regardless of what is produced.

since nanobots would be essentially invisible and be able to pierce virtually any shields and kill people extremely effectively they will make the perfect weapons.

Hopefully of course there won't be any wars when this is developed, because otherwise we are in deep trouble.

They've already got the microwave trucks.
Wow! But what I don't get is how the microwaves don't cause long-term effects?
It is understood that microwave radiation of a level that causes heating of living tissue is hazardous (due to the possibility of overheating and burns) and most countries have standards limiting exposure, such as the Federal Communications Commission RF safety regulation

I'm indecisive, so I chose all the poll options. :D


I think brownies will be the weapon of choice in the wars to come. Frosted brownies with chocolate chips in them.

Mexicans are the future weapons. We'll have guns and cannons that shoot Mexicans.

I'm indecisive, so I chose all the poll options. :D


I think brownies will be the weapon of choice in the wars to come. Frosted brownies with chocolate chips in them.

I dunno, once we finish those devlopments on cupcake shooting howitzers, brownies will be outdated. Like the Italian army during WWII

$1800 flashlights!

http://img287.imageshack.us/img287/4...ncloud2dp4.jpg :p

Flying disembodied phalluses.

Flying disembodied phalluses.

:eek: Wouldn't that be a terror weapon?

:eek: Wouldn't that be a terror weapon?

Depends on your point of view ;)

We will probably be using projectiles for much of the forseeable future. The US military is working on self-propelled bullets, so we might see those within a few decades. If the technology can be downsized, we could see portable railguns in the late 21st century.

Lasers and other sci-fi weapons will be introduced during the 21st century. The first laser weapons will be anti-missile systems (we are starting to deploy those already). I do not see laser rifles becoming common unless they can prove significant advantages over projectile weapons without significant increase in cost.

Beyond that, it really depends on what kind of wars we fight. If asymmetric warfare dominates the 21st century, then increased precision will be key. This might result in directed-energy weapons replacing explosive shells or missiles in some cases.

Take the Israelis, who frequently assassinate terrorists using helicopter-launched missiles. Unfortunately, these missiles have a habit of causing collateral damage. Imagine if the Israelis had helicopters with lasers that could kill everyone inside the car, but nobody outside it? Actually, particle beams might work better, since any terrorist with a brain would simply put a mirror on the roof of his car.

The real revolution will come in the form of other kinds of military technology. Advanced militaries will have an incredibly high degree of technological sophistication, many of these designed to tackle the problems of asymmetric warfare. The counter to this will be EMP, but once that is used, the advanced militaries will quickly work to develop sophisticated shielding.

Dog shit on a stick.

Crotch-seeking projectiles. :)

nukes with maxablaster flashlights duck taped to them

Crotch-seeking projectiles. :)

Attack weasels perchance?

Less generally explodetabulous, and better guided. The rules of engagement are only going to get stricter, and stuff like the Area Denial System and all of that jazz are going to be the first on the list when a review comes of 'what's ok or not?'.

Attack weasels perchance?

Perhaps. :)

I dunno, once we finish those devlopments on cupcake shooting howitzers, brownies will be outdated. Like the Italian army during WWII

See, here's the thing. Cupcakes are cakes. And while cakes > pie, brownies (any brownies, but especially frosted brownies with chocolate chips in them) > cakes.

So, in conclusion, brownies > cakes > pie.

The hand-held pie-rail gun will be able to hurl a pecan pie 5000 nautical miles with an accuracy of plus or minus 2 inches...

The hand-held pie-rail gun will be able to hurl a pecan pie 5000 nautical miles with an accuracy of plus or minus 2 inches...

But pecan pie sucks! Besides, brownies don't need a launcher. They can hit a target 6000 nautical miles away, with an accuracy of plus or minus 1/2 an inch. They can do this all on their own too.

:D

Everbody knows that we shall use rabid weasels on sticks as weapons in the future.

One day, Bio Organic Weapons will become commen.
(Resident Evil for those of you who don't get it)

Purple ones.

Hellos,

Personally, I think weapons that have a "setting range" like the Star Trek phaser will be used. However, made for "Current Age" level technology.

Setting ONE is the US Navy microwave to cause as much pain as an electric fence, as irritating as suddenly getting shocked by someone rubbing their socked feet on the carpet, then touching you.
Setting TWO is either a paint-ball, or bean-bag firing capability.
Setting THREE is the use of actual bullets.

Reasons being:
-Urban warfare, occurs more often, and will keep being "trendy" as earth continues its over-population breeding spree. :headbang:
-Causing greater potential of killing, wounding, hurting economically (taking out their car, shop, living room wall)...all the wrong people.
-The apparent mentality shift of -staying- after winning some battle; causing a need for smiling public relations department before, during and after the battle.
-Being a technology that is usefull for military, police, "peace"-keeping, UN missions, etc. AKA a "multi-tool" it could be R&D'ed to cut down on the amount of gear a soilder carries, and simplify logistical demand among member nations who adopt this weapon.

E-GADS! I sound like a salesman!
sorry!
-Rafe

Cyber attacks. Shutting down countries' systems via hacking etc. It may have already started in a limited sense, but it's the future.

Terran or Protoss?

Attack weasels perchance?
http://www.ferretcentral.org/jpegs/pauly-dance.jpg

I could hook you up.
<.<
>.>

Everbody knows that we shall use rabid weasels on sticks as weapons in the future.

...and as luffa in the Drawn Together shower. *nods*

I expect kinetic (projectile) weapons to be the primary type of weaponry for soldiers for the foreseeable future. Platform based lasers are theoretically best for anti-missile systems, but are simply impractical for infantry.

Kinetic weapons are small, light-weight, simple, and deal significant damage. Energy weapons have a significant hurdle of power consumption (which is possible to overcome, but very difficult), robustness (again, possible to overcome, but comparatively easily damaged under combat conditions), and damage limitations. Lasers melt through components - reflective and thermally resistant materials (especially on a moving target) greatly reduce the energy absorption, where as a kinetic impact delivers substantial force on impact. Sure, it can be deflected or stopped, but the energy transfer is still going to be far more significant than directed light.

Atmospheric conditions also give a big plus for kinetics - a little fog will scatter a beam of light and thick smoke will occlude it. While wind can reduce the accuracy of projectiles over long distances, actual combat conditions are likely to be too short ranged for infantry to be concerned with it.

Microwave - easily defeated. Just wear a metal mesh incorporated into your armor. RF shielding is extremely easy.

Future conflicts are likely to be increasingly urban. My guestimate will be that infantry will be best served by lightweight armor, a small high-intensity laser for blinding opponents (UN ban be damned - alls fair, and how is shooting someone in the face better than blinding them?), a compact projectile weapon (like the MP7), and a couple grenades. RPGs will be further developed - both shaped charge and thermobaric warheads. Emphasis on cheap, easy to use, and reliable.

Aircraft will be largely ignored as they are not cost-effective - the exception would be heavy cargo planes. Perhaps small helicopters for troop insertion in rough terrain (but they are too vulnerable for widespread use). Artillery or long-range guided missiles (including weapon drones just hanging around in the sky waiting for a target) would be more practicable.

My prognostication is that warfare will become increasingly asymmetric and urban. Space based weapons will always be too expensive. Local conflicts, insurgencies, rebellions, ethnic cleansing, etc will become more and more common as weaponry is increasingly cheap and easy.

Eventually, after they become sufficiently developed, soldiers will advance from using a combination of compact automatic projectile weapons and grenades to using trained attack weasels.

Low-cost nuclear railgun crossbows that are exactly like the weapons we have today, of course. Except with rhubarb filling *nod*

The only destructive weapons that will be used at that time will be robot against robot in tournaments.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Human against human weapons will be non-lethal such as immobilization rays that will literally leave the person it is aimed at unable to move.

Also we'll have developed psychological weapons that will do things like flood a person with feelings of love for everyone and everything and leave them with no desire to do anything but good. Or perhaps it will disable their ability to even think.

Going to go with the "sticks and stones" answer. After we nuke ourselves back into the stone age of course.

That's when my wolverineapult will become the new super-weapon.

Giant Robots FTW

http://mgs3.bonusweb.cz/index/pix/metal_gear/rex.jpg
http://www.lelola.net/gw/ms/wingzero.gif
http://www.jeansimard.com/images/wip/apu/apu73.jpg

*Drools*

Giant Robots FTW

http://mgs3.bonusweb.cz/index/pix/metal_gear/rex.jpg
http://www.lelola.net/gw/ms/wingzero.gif
http://www.jeansimard.com/images/wip/apu/apu73.jpg

*Drools*

How would it go up stairs? Or even a steep hill?
But they are pretty cool, see 40k Titans, now they are the weapons of the future.

The weapons of the future that a developed-world soldier would use, from my view of technology advances:

- Electrolaser: uses a laser to create a plasma channel, allowing a lightning bolt to travel down the path. Powered by kinetic batteries with super-capacities after extensive development from the renewable energy field, they are used since they can be configured to be non-lethal!
- Nano-armour suits: Using mutliple-layer nanosheets to stop bullets and cut down the force of the impact, stop knives penetrating, and to seal in case of gas attack. Also able to administer medicine in case of poisoning or being shot. Inbuilt kinetic batteries to power equipment, and completely insulated to reduce electro-laser damage. Built in countermeasure system to deal with IEDs and guided munitions. Ditto with the helmets.

Apart from that, the equipment would be the same as it is nowadays.


For a developing-world country/insurgeant group:

- AK-74 with AP ammunition to take out soldiers
- Manually-fired IEDs
- Homemade ultra-thick soles to shoes to reduce damage of the electrolasers.

What say you?

No, not lasers or firearms.

Hand-held particle accelerators that will shoot beams of antimatter that will annihilate anything it touches.

Seriously though guys: railguns, gaussguns, particle beams etc are all impossible at that time, since they have so many shortcomings and are not really effective as a weapon in that time... think the sort of battle we will be fighting, normally developed .v. developing nations, especially over oil and other resources, so we will have rather a lot of cases of urban warfare battles.

Seriously though guys: railguns, gaussguns, particle beams etc are all impossible at that time, since they have so many shortcomings and are not really effective as a weapon in that time... think the sort of battle we will be fighting, normally developed .v. developing nations, especially over oil and other resources, so we will have rather a lot of cases of urban warfare battles.

Fought with PARTICLE ACCELERATORS!! :gundge::gundge::gundge:

Sorry mate, thought this was a serious discussion...

Thing is with your antimatter particle accelerators then:
- How are you going to contain the antimatter?
- How are you going to produce it without ruining your country?
- How are you going to fire one without destroying the entire city?
- How are you going to carry around enough power for the magnets?
- How are you going to use non-existent room-temperature superconductors?
- How are they any better than existing weapons?

- How are you going to contain the antimatter?
In antiparticle containment cells, of course. Antiparticles are pretty much the same as their normal particle counterparts, until they've been launched into each other where they explode in a flash of pure energy.

- How are you going to produce it without ruining your country?
How do we produce uranium without ruining a country? Or steel? Or corn on the cob? Same question.

- How are you going to fire one without destroying the entire city?
Particle accelerators are used all the time to observe things like electrons and protons which can't normally be seen with microscopes. Sometimes they are used to annihilate things to observe how they explode. One little antiparticle isn't going to destroy a city, silly.

- How are you going to carry around enough power for the magnets?
Nanomachines, of course. I assume that this will particle accelerator cannon (PAC) will utilize the miniaturization of technology. We're talking about the future, of course.

- How are you going to use non-existent room-temperature superconductors?
We're talking about what kinds of weapons will be used in the future. In other words, what kinds of weapons will be invented. Most of the things talked about in this thread have not been invented to work in a battlefield. Has the subject suddenly changed, or am I not allowed to talk about things uninvented when it comes to particle accelerators?

- How are they any better than existing weapons?
I shall use graphics to explain this.

This man is hiding behind a brick wall.

:headbang:

The other man is trying to kill him.

:headbang::mp5:

Uh-oh, the bullets can't pierce the wall! So he tries another weapon.

:headbang::sniper:

It still uses kinetic piercing, and so it still doesn't work. Now he uses a particle accelerator shooting anti-matter.

:eek::gundge:

It melted right through the wall! Now he has nothing to hide behind.

:D

And that is the PAC-gunman grinning. Notice the lack of the enemy? That is because he was annihilated by antimatter and was turned into a flash of pure energy.

That is why PACs kick ass and butt.

Humanity already has weapon's arsenals capable of killing 4 billion people at any given time within thirty minutes. I do not want to contemplate how much more frightening our technological terrors will be in 40 years.

Humanity already has weapon's arsenals capable of killing 4 billion people at any given time within thirty minutes. I do not want to contemplate how much more frightening our technological terrors will be in 40 years.

The real question is whether that increased potency makes it more or less likely that we will use them.

The real question is whether that increased potency makes it more or less likely that we will use them.

I'm not feeling very optimistic right now. But hey, there's no use crying over every mistake/ you just keep on trying til you run out of cake/ and the science gets done/ and you make a neat gun/ for the people who are still alive.

What kind of weapons will be used in the future?

hopefully, none

I think some governments could fake making ultimate weapons, just the psychological notion that some other power has a brilliant gun might be able to stop wars, by playing illusions, make up false evidence and some bizzare theories on some fancy weapon, then strut around and gain more political power as a result. Or even the illusion of military strength.

Lasers have already been in use. Laser Dazzle Scopes were used by the Royal Navy in the 1982 Falklands war

In 1990, the U.K. Ministry of Defense acknowledged that it had developed and fielded a laser dazzle system, manufactured by Irwin Desman Ltd., for use by the Royal Navy’s Broadsword frigates and Type-42 destroyers. Although reported deployed to the Arabian Gulf for anti-small boat defense, industry sources assess it as capable of deterring a kamikaze style air attack. The system reportedly uses a low-power blue laser that does not cause permanent eye injuries. At a nominal range of 2.75 kilometers, an UWB microwave system would not only appear to be more effective, it would also preclude any concerns with violations of Protocol IV to the United Nations Conventions on Prohibitions on Conventional Weapons. A. P. O’Leary, ed. Jane’s Electro-optic Systems 1997-1998 (London, UK: Jane’s Information Group, Ltd. 1998), pp. 11, 31-31.

Now everyone's at it.

France, Britain, Russia, Germany and Israel are believed to have pursued EOCM or antipersonnel laser programs. Last year, China's North Industries Corporation marketed the ZM-87 Portable Laser Disturber, a 73-lb tripod-mounted EOCM device.

I think some governments could fake making ultimate weapons, just the psychological notion that some other power has a brilliant gun might be able to stop wars, by playing illusions, make up false evidence and some bizzare theories on some fancy weapon, then strut around and gain more political power as a result. Or even the illusion of military strength.

That only works under the assumption that everyone is both rational and gullible - not a strategy that would hold up very long in the real world.


As an aside - do any of you know what 'nanotech' actually is? Throwing out the word nano does not mean you can suddenly do anything - no amount of bad science fiction can change basic materials science. 'nano' armor is not going to stop any weapon or repair damage in the field, at least not in the next thousand years.

Sophisticated bioweaponry. There's a decent chance it will destroy the human species.

Nanotechnological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus Ex) augmentation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus Ex: Invisible War).

Sophisticated bioweaponry. There's a decent chance it will destroy the human species.

Makes you feel all warm n' fuzzy inside, doesn't it?

I'm not feeling very optimistic right now. But hey, there's no use crying over every mistake/ you just keep on trying til you run out of cake/ and the science gets done/ and you make a neat gun/ for the people who are still alive.

Thank you for helping us help you help us all.

(also, I'm waiting for someone to catch the not-so-subtle irony of my signature)

Guns and bombs.

and frankly I'm stunned that in 5 pages of this thread I haven't seen him quoted or paraphrased yet... given that upon seeing what the first nuclear weapon was capable of, he said (I hope I have this accurate)

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

and frankly I'm stunned that in 5 pages of this thread I haven't seen him quoted or paraphrased yet... given that upon seeing what the first nuclear weapon was capable of, he said (I hope I have this accurate)

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Going to go with the "sticks and stones" answer. After we nuke ourselves back into the stone age of course.

I'm not so sure about biological weapons, they're not all that viable in a military sense. I know because the people at II said so.

Probably same ol', same ol'. Maybe railguns, but not hand held.

flint knives and bear skins, eventually is all we will have left we'll be able to afford if we continue to fight them.

sure every ten year old will know HOW to build a nuke, but no one will actually any longer be able to have the means of doing so.

=^^=
.../\...

Nano-engineered weapons

A brief-case could carry enough nanobots to hold enough poison to kill every person on earth.

Once we have self replicating molecular manufacturing production costs essentially drop to the price of the materials, roughly $1 per kg of material produced, regardless of what is produced.

since nanobots would be essentially invisible and be able to pierce virtually any shields and kill people extremely effectively they will make the perfect weapons.

Hopefully of course there won't be any wars when this is developed, because otherwise we are in deep trouble.

However, since nanobots do not and never will exist, this is rather moot.

Thank you for helping us help you help us all.

(also, I'm waiting for someone to catch the not-so-subtle irony of my signature)

Let's give it a couple more days.

BTW, have you tried the delicious cake yet?

However, since nanobots do not and never will exist, this is rather moot.

Biological organisms already use nanomachines in their operation; sperm are one of the main engineering paths for designing propulsion systems in artificial nanites because their method is so good for these devices' intended purpose. Nanotechnological weapons are going to be a big threat because they combine the advantages of a mechanical weapon with those of a biological one; they could be used to defoliate on a massive scale, deliver toxic or beneficial compounds to soldiers, launch attacks on electronic infrastructure, or seed an area with difficult-to-detect surveillance devices.

Nanites will be one of the most important weapons of the next 30 years, both for defensive/medical applications and offensive purposes. Anyone who doesn't research them is going to be left in the dust because they're going to completely alter the face of combat...for better or for worse. The biggest concern is that by combining the best of both worlds, they also contain the risks of both worlds; the grey goo scenario is the nuclear winter or global plague of molecular nanotechnology.

I personally welcome our Gray Goo overlords.

Oh, wait...

I personally welcome our Gray Goo overlords.

Oh, wait...

All approximately 8.87 x 10^49 of them...if we're lucky and they don't get off-world.

All approximately 8.87 x 10^49 of them...if we're lucky and they don't get off-world.

Gray Goo, meet expanding Gray Nebula!

However, since nanobots do not and never will exist, this is rather moot.
Any theories to show why nanobots will never exist? Any personal experience to show that? Any understanding of nanorobotic theory to show that it is implausible? No profound insights to show that the millions of dollars being spent researching nanotechnology is a waste?

In other words,

Back your statements up, or GTFO.

Any theories to show why nanobots will never exist? Any personal experience to show that? Any understanding of nanorobotic theory to show that it is implausible? No profound insights to show that the millions of dollars being spent researching nanotechnology is a waste?.

People said that the atomic bomb wasn't possible...and then Hiroshima happened. That single event, I personally believe, has truly shaped our entire culture in untold ways; for the first time, man harnessed the power to destroy himself.

Molecular nanotechnology and nanites will completely alter the face of the modern economic and social world, and will do it very, very soon. We need to make sure the people who first utilize their potential utilize them for good purposes, meant for the betterment of mankind rather than use them to kill or destroy. Nothing is impossible...that's what makes it so important that we never lose vigilance in ensuring that technology is only applied for the improvement of people, not their destruction.

for the first time, man harnessed the power to destroy himself.
*ahem*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternating_current
http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_warcur.html

Do you mean, more appropriately, "disintegrate" himself?

oh nanobots exist alright, but they don't fight for anybody but themselves! (and woe to any who would cross their mighty diminuitive armies)

=^^=
.../\...

*ahem*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternating_current
http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_warcur.html

Do you mean, more appropriately, "disintegrate" himself?

The power to completely ruin shit.

Guns that shoot pretty colors.

The future weapon of choice will be.......

reason.













ROFLMFAO

Regarding nano-bots, while I have a great deal of concern regarding nano-technology, the self-replicating stuff may be quite a way off. I'm more concerned about the use of nano-technology for covert control. Imagine a billion tiny robots crawling around. They could be anywhere, in your house, on your computer, in your body, and you would never know. You hear some one say something suspiceous, and they have you. they don't have to arrest you, or even shoot you. remember the injection of nano bots given to remove that tumor? it's now busy giving you a heart attack. i can't see most governments or comanies passing up that kind of power, especialy since once one person has it they all need it to stay competative:upyours:. I don't think democracy on earth will last beyond the end of the century, for this and other reasons:( The steady development of technology combined with the nature of politics makes it inevitable. that said there is one obvious defense: EMP.:)

Molecular nanotechnology and nanites will completely alter the face of the modern economic and social world

Nanotech has been greatly exaggerated. Molecular biology and protein physics work better and are more quiclky available.

Future weapons...

not likely:
Gauss cannons (EM coils accelerating shells) have been proven impractical back in WW2, the Nazi tried them (a 40mm FlAK, iirc) and they sucked an enormous amount of energy.
Laser - no way, except for some extremely narrow applications - you can't have an infantryman carrying along what is needed
Directed, high pressure plasma - maybe that's more viable as a substitution for large anti-armour calibers, but missiles and smart HEAT shells are more effective and cost less. Also atmosphere cools down plasma quite quickly.
Classical WMD (nuclear, chemical, biological) - not likely because of the sociological impact.
Almost-complete stealth tech (F-117): it doesn't work (when a 50-years-old SA-3 downs a multimegadollars' worth stealth aircraft, you know something's gone amiss)

likely:
Microwave (either through maser or klystron/magnetron): this works a lot, and it's just an evolution of the radar. It can disable/kill pepole at range (heat a brain above 42 °C and it will stop working), and effectively hammers at electronics jamming it. Very vulnerable to passive homing/anti-radiation missiles.
Active signature reduction (plasma absorption of incoming radar): looks like it's going to work.

Already working and going to be used a lot more:
Passive signature reduction (example F-22, Tu-160, EFA): an acceptable compromise between stealth concept and performance
Thermobaric warheads: alredy being used, I think that its use will spread a lot.
Unguided rockets: easy, cheap, very long range.
Supercavitating underwater rockets: ultimate antisub weapon.
Guided missiles: of course. They work best within a multiplatform datalink system (satellite+airborne radars+surface radars).
Firearms (both personal and mounted): easy, accurate, cheap, available, lethal.
Improved infantryman (see the Félin): it's cheap, and it reduces casualties.

The steady development of technology combined with the nature of politics makes it inevitable. that said there is one obvious defense: EMP.:)

That's always a classic, and probably one of the main reasons why a complete grey goo scenario is highly unlikely. Of course, that still means we might lose a city or two, or something bigger, before they're stopped so that's still not very comforting. The goal is, of course, generally to avoid killing people.

A failsafe built in to self-replicating systems (which in this case are somewhat further down the line than just miniaturized robots) would be to engineer them so that it's always possible to induce their destruction, sort of like how a major weapon against cancer is the induction of cell death. I definitely believe biomimetics would be vital to ensure the safety of these devices; by imposing the same selective and regulatory pressures that biological organisms encounter, it will be possible for the technology to self-regulate and evolve in a safe way.

This, of course, won't stop rogue regimes and other elements from trying to work around these built in protections, but it's better than nothing. This stuff will develop whether we want it or not, and it's up to those of us who want it used for good to stop those who want to use it for evil from succeeding.

I think that one thing the war on terror has shown is that traditional millitary solutions tend not to work. The big first-world nations are unlikely to fight all-out in the forseeable future, due to WMDs and economic interdepenency. Due to the proliferation of WMDs, the next few years/decades will probably see a relative, though unstable peace, until someone starts using nuclear weapons. The all bets are off. Until then, most of the conflicts will be fought against terrorists/insurgents, perhaps acting as proxies for big powers who dare not fight openly(i.e. Israel and Hezbolah as proxies for the US and Iran). I see armed forces being geared more and more toward fighting this kind of war. i also expect to see more wide spread use of anti-missle defenses (including lasers) and unmanned drones. Warfare as a whole will be more automated(see plans for new Israeli defense system), though I sure as hell don't see the old-fasioned infantry man becoming obsolete any time soon. This is another lesson of Iraq: if your going to invade, you better have a lot of troops on the ground.

Oh I agree we have a responsibility to try to prevent the misuse of this technology. Just because I suspect its I hopeless fight doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it anyway.:)

The weapons of the future are going to be back-alley handguns and cloned rifles, the ill-fitting products of underground smiths. Unreliable, cheap, innacurate, yet deadly. Simple designs --- automatics, bolt actions, and the like, nothing special. The sort of thing that a few citizens can use to kill a policeman, that the revolts and uprisings can arm themselves with.

The weapons of the future will be the molotov and the IED, the great equalisers of irregular infantry against mechanised armies. Again, simple to construct, dangerous to all, and very effective. We can already see these tendencies in Iraq; not fighting straight up battles, but ambush and bombings.

The weapons of the future will be information and rhetoric, made possible by the Internet. A decentralised network, in which no-one is above anyone else, anyone can publish, and anonymity is trivial. This will be the nexus of the revolutionaries, the gathering point of the freedom fighters, the new soapbox and podium in the battle for the hearts of the masses.

I don't feel that we're going to move to kickass high technology yet, but instead to commodity weaponry, bringing the instruments of warfare truly into the hands of the people. A parallel can be drawn with computer hardware, where the dirt cheap PC clones beat out many of the more expensive, higher quality systems. Let the governments tremble, for the people will begin to fight!

In case that wasn't clear, what I forsee is the true ubiquity of killing power. No longer will it be a monopoly of the government, restricted to the few. I feel that weapons we even now consider 'low-tech' will become the key players in many near-future wars, for the reasons I have outlined. Information warfare will also be important, and the key here is, to a huge extent, brains.

However, having said that, I do feel the need to correct a few misconceptions of what various future weapons are possible. Firstly, in regards to handheld railguns. There is a hard limit on the amount of energy you can deliver from a projectile weapon, and we're reaching it. This is quite simply because of recoil. So don't expect to have handheld railguns that will shoot through tanks, because the amount of recoil will rip your arm off. In the far future, maybe, but not now. Lasers are a lot more probable, although not your Star Wars type thing.

Thank you for reading.