From: S.J. Van Sickle (sjvan@csd.uwm.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 11 2002 - 08:12:51 MDT
Damien:
>read it as an interesting example of
>how to think through many likely and surprising impacts of a radical
>technology that upends a major plank of the current world order.
I could only get about half-way through before giving up in disgust,
precisely because I *didn't* think it thought things through. If it turns
out the ending covered this, put up a spoiler warning and let me know, but
I hardly thought the described technology would cause anyone's military or
police (or street gang, for that matter) to scarcely skip a beat.
First: war and violence long predate firearms. Mountains of skulls at
Samarkand, and just within the last *decade* a pretty decent attempt a
genocide occured in Africa with *machetes*.
Next, I started making up a list of weapons that would not be effected:
Traditional: swords, bows, crossbows, batons, pikes, etc. The ancients
did pretty well with these...now imagine ancient warfare with modern
logistics, aerial intelligence, and radio. <shudder>
Current inventory, possibly minor modifications needed:
Napalm
flame throwers
Fuel-Air Explosives
Rockets
Thermite
Poison gas
aircraft, cruise missiles, PGM
tanks, APC (protection for troops, and crushing buildings/people)
Things that could be built on short notice:
liquid propellant artillary
centrifuge slug throwers (crew served)
compressed air guns (crew or individual)
poison darts and throwers (individual or handheld)
gun type U-235 nuclear weapons (using fuel/oxygen propellent)
wide variety of biological weapons, both simply incapacitating and deadly
Things that could be built with some development:
laser weapons (vehicle and crew served)
electromagnetic artillary/rail gun (vehicle and crew served)
All I see the elimination of conventional gun propellants/explosives doing
is putting a probably short term crimp in individual and handheld weapons,
a minor handicap for a major army, and simply once again placing a premium
on strength and size for small ill equipt armies and in more, err, social
occasions.
It would also create, imo, a strong incentive and excuse to use
non-conventional weapons not currently in use that are more deadly and
indescriminant than those used now, such as nerve gas and nuclear weapons.
I cannot see how it would be a happier world.
steve van sickle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:20 MST