Then we better hope the armies recruit city boys that can't shoot the broad side of barn, huh?

Another thing to think about is: Better weapons, less soldiers? I guess that would only apply to the countries who use the weapon. Having a weapon that will give out instant deaths would be like an equivalent to a nuclear warhead. Countries probably wouldn't want to use them. It would be too easy.


lol.. I knew you would put something in there like bitchcake.

[quote="Sgt. Duffy":91909]You ever noticed as the more dangerous the weapons become, the less casualties there are? I mean, christ, look at all the Medieval wars...thousands die within an hour. Then there goes the Civil War...millions die, and the rifles are weak as guck...modern combat, and we got the most souped-up weapons ever, and somehow the casualties are only in the thousands (Not that thats not high, just compared to past history..)[/quote:91909]
We're not fighting a body of over 1 million soldiers at the moment. It's a just a few thousands terrorist. Which would mean less dealth.

This idea is pure oOo: . However, I don't see it as reality. How could something possibly cycle so fast? I mean what can you actually do 120,000 times in a mintue? 2000 rounds a second? What can you do 2000 times in a second? Hell, you can barely do anything 10 times in a second. The world is on track for one major fuck up.

[quote=Hawke]We're not fighting a body of over 1 million soldiers at the moment. It's a just a few thousands terrorist. Which would mean less dealth.

This idea is pure oOo: . However, I don't see it as reality. How could something possibly cycle so fast? I mean what can you actually do 120,000 times in a mintue? 2000 rounds a second? What can you do 2000 times in a second? Hell, you can barely do anything 10 times in a second. The world is on track for one major fuck up.[/quote:f87c6]

I agree, but their is an electronic "gun" being developed that can fire off a million or so rounds in a second. eek:

[quote="Jin-Roh":a0d8e]

Their is an electronic "gun" being developed that can fire off a million or so rounds in a second. eek:[/quote:a0d8e]
Meh, people "develop" things that never get done or never actually. Its not easy to get things to do something 1 million times in a second. It would take tons and tons of barrels.

Regardless, its a dumb idea.

[quote="Sgt. Duffy":090f0]You ever noticed as the more dangerous the weapons become, the less casualties there are? I mean, christ, look at all the Medieval wars...thousands die within an hour. Then there goes the Civil War...millions die, and the rifles are weak as guck...modern combat, and we got the most souped-up weapons ever, and somehow the casualties are only in the thousands (Not that thats not high, just compared to past history..)[/quote:090f0]


It's not because the guns are bigger and better that for some reason people aren't dying as often,

It's because of advancements in medicine, more specifically antibioitics (Most wounded soldiers would die from infection of their wounds, not the wound itself), and field surgery that was keeping people alive more often then not.

Napoleon was able to keep most of his wounded after a battle alive because of a french surgeon who noticed that all his paitents would get infections and die after he closed the wound, so he would leave the wound open and a lot more troops were living with just a deformed leg or arm.

Then they stopped doing this after Napoleon, and troop mortality rates would keep skyrocketing because no one realized that by closing the wounds they were promoting infection, that was until some surgeon put a plaster cast over a mans wound because of a lack of suture and after a month he noticed that the plaster cast was absorbing all the infection. He started using this on all his incoming wounded and the chance of survivng their wounds went from 25% to around 95%.

So you see, the coincidence of better and better guns has abosolutly nothing to do whatsoever with the increased survival rate.

[url:d5149]http://defensereview.com/dad/dread.mov[/url:d5149]

Takes a bit to load but is good.

1/3 of an inch apart!?

ed:

thats my head

Reminds me of the UAC weapon videos from Doom 3.

Anyway that thing is useless, modern battlefields will be urban not LOTR style open field battles. Plus this is a HUGE double edged sword. Imagine you hear on the news one day "Iraqi Insurgents storm US convoy killing 18 soldiers, and stealing two Dread Weapon systems, then later mowed down a US Marine base killing hundreds US soldiers."

[quote="$p!k3":5ae31]Reminds me of the UAC weapon videos from Doom 3.

Anyway that thing is useless, modern battlefields will be urban not LOTR style open field battles. Plus this is a HUGE double edged sword. Imagine you hear on the news one day "Iraqi Insurgents storm US convoy killing 18 soldiers, and stealing two Dread Weapon systems, then later mowed down a US Marine base killing hundreds US soldiers."[/quote:5ae31]
ya, thats a problem. those doom 3 UAC vids seem cheaply done, but now that Ive seen the real thing, very realistic. I think I done a bad thing: Should I have canceled the transmission rather than sending?

[quote="Sgt. Duffy":18668]You ever noticed as the more dangerous the weapons become, the less casualties there are? I mean, christ, look at all the Medieval wars...thousands die within an hour. Then there goes the Civil War...millions die, and the rifles are weak as guck...modern combat, and we got the most souped-up weapons ever, and somehow the casualties are only in the thousands (Not that thats not high, just compared to past history..)[/quote:18668]

umm........ conflicts have technically been getting worse with time.... The difference with wars back then were that most people died during the battles, with war nowadays, the battle field is an entire country, or the world... Sure thousands died in a short time span, but many conflicts back then could be finished in a matter of a couple battles.