Matrix Games Forums

Leave it to me to come up- with a wild thread. But seriously I've thought about a possibility of how future wars will be fought (resolved).

I could envision the armies of nations, arsonals, full of non-lethal weapons. In order for this to happen the world would need to develop a more civil code of conduct. Based on the fact that human life meant more to people.

So new rules of warfare will need to be followed.

I know it appears to be a far-fetched idea. But consider how today the use of non-lethal weapons are effective in crowd control. Could there be weapons that would control or dissable armies?

In Use today:
1. The Water Cannon
2. Tear Gas
3. Noise control machine(emites a horrible noise) which disperes crowds.
4. Rubber bullets
5. A tactical weapon(in use by police) A gun that shoots a net to capture an individual criminal.

The above are just a few examples.


Would the world ever go in that direction? (Non-Lethal Weapons)

No

No

Definitely not.[:-]

No realistic chance of this ever happening.

No way. [:)]

Regards,

Greg

It would never work. As soon as one side realises that they are loosing they will pull up the real weapons.

Might belong in the Olympic Games [:D] Sorry, couldn't resist given that Military Patrol has been an Olympic Event....

Would the world ever go in that direction? (Non-Lethal Weapons)

See the original Star Trek Episode "A taste of Armageddon" for a scenario looking at waging non-lethal war - to the point of requiring acting out the lethal consequences of "virtual combat".

[:(][:-]

Actually it's more effective to wound rather than kill an enemy combatant.  The logic is that it takes additional personnel and resources to care for the wounded.  This, of course, assumes that your enemy values human life.

erh, most of those weapons are not non-lethal : just like guns can be less lethal when you train people to shoot legs/knees (avoiding major arteries by using lighter caliber, you get just as much of that "mythical" stopping power when you explode someone's knee joint), rubber bullets used lethally will kill, and even used in a non lethal situation, they will kill in close combat.
Ditto with water cannon, which can kill.
So no, it's not going to happen, at least not the way you seem to envisage it : doesn't make sense.
We might see usage of less lethal weaponry, but "civilized warfare" ?
In that case, let's do it with rugby, australian or american/canadian football, heh ?
Or the ancestor of all those sports, good old no holds barred village folk football, aka la soule ou choule in French, which was when you think about it nearly as violent as warfare of that time, but without weapons (most times)
Well, come to think of it, we'll have to have a nuclear war to decide what sport is the war sport, but that's another story...
Ain't going to happen : war is war, and if we evolve to the point of being able to wage non lethal war, why wage it at all ?
Cheers !

ORIGINAL: tocaff
Actually it's more effective to wound rather than kill an enemy combatant.  The logic is that it takes additional personnel and resources to care for the wounded. 

That's what they told us when they issued us this piss-poor 5.56 FNC gun - zero stopping power, but great for wounding.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as24-e.htm

ORIGINAL: tocaff
This, of course, assumes that your enemy values human life.

Given that we were supposed to fight the Soviets with that I don't know who they thought they were kidding.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

My friends and I were planning on going bear hunting back in the late 1960s so I borrowed a Mauser to take and went shopping for a side arm.  I'll never forget what the shop owner told me as he showed we a Ruger .357 mag "This will tear a bear's nuts off".  He then proceeded to show me a .44 mag and said "This'll take his ass off too."

There's nothing like being in a situation where you hit your target and drop it.  Makes me think of Star Trek and the Vulcan "Live long and prosper."

I like bears.......I say bears should only be hunted hand to hand to give them a fair chance. [&:]

Is this like the Gay Bomb?

I personally think sonic weaponry would be awesome, but it will always be accompanied by a lethal weapon to finish the job.

SoM

ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper
I like bears.......I say bears should only be hunted hand to hand to give them a fair chance. [&:]

You call that a *fair* chance ? [:D]

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

Yes, I can see it all now.  Newspaper headlines, first one:  "Non-lethals used in first battle"; second one:  "Run on shotguns at all retail outlets; ammunition at an all-time low; defense officials quoted 'Inexplicable!' "; third one ... sorry, can't type it out as it's in Arabic or Cyrillic.  Twits.

Maybe wars and conflict could be settled in arenas? You could let each side appoint their squad and let the citizens pay for tickets. Heck, you could even sell beer and popcorn. Maybe even a sponsor or two. You could also see the television rights of course. The the squads fight it out with non-letal weapons (like an American Football for example, which is in itself a contraction since it is per definition neither a ball nor kicked with the foot very often, but hey, let's not get stuck on details here!) while the crowds cheer and the rest fall asleep in front of the television when the drama goes into OT. But wait a minute, someone already stole this concept, didn't they? Man, we could have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize and gone to Oslo and partied like animals before playing a game for control of some remote barren border somewhere 

ORIGINAL: Zakhal

It would never work. As soon as one side realises that they are loosing they will pull up the real weapons.

Reply:
This is most likely true. No one country could live by a new code. The desire to win would eventually lead countries to use lethal weapons.







Paul Vebber
See the original Star Trek Episode "A taste of Armageddon" for a scenario looking at waging non-lethal war - to the point of requiring acting out the lethal consequences of "virtual combat".

Reply:
The idea shown by that "episode" that people would have to send themselves to an extermination chamber as a result of "virtual combat" is not how I envisioned the code of non-lethal war to work.

My idea is ,for sure, is much more improbable. It would work like this. The non-lethal weapons developed would incapacitate the other nations army. The nations would have to capture and hold(temporarily) in cells that army. Until one of the nations had to sue for peace. because it no longer had an Army to field. After the war was won. The incarcerated armies would be released back to there nations.

I concur with the nay-sayers about the lack of probability of such a thing.

But an intriguing question is: 'Given that it could be...would such a thing really be desirable?'

At the risk of being the resident neanderthal, would (relatively) bloodless war be a goal to work towards? Possibly, ...but I'm not sure.

We can all see the benefit of no-risk war to our own persons (me included), but what would be the unforeseen effects of such an arrangement? Would it lead to tyrannical governments across the globe? - never needing popular support?

Would 'war' become the standard international relationship? Wars are ruinous economically...

In a world used to 'war' being no more than a soccer-match, what would be the result of destructive war, fought with deadly weapons, upon a populace no longer imbued with the morale strength to take life in self-defense? (we see that now in some circles).
The obvious answer would be that - after 'sufficient' misery - people would re-discover their own self-interest...but how many innocent people would die before that point were reached?

I don't know, maybe my intuitions are all wrong... but Robert E. Lee said "it is good that war is horrible - or else we may grow too fond of it".

Food for thought anyway.


B