RE: Non-lethal weapon Armies. In the future? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Zap -> RE: Non-lethal weapon Armies. In the future? (9/9/2008 9:00:07 AM)

IKE
Therefore, to avoid more serious and long-term damages, death and destruction, sometimes it is entirely necessary and unavoidable to inflict truly horrific death and massive property destruction on one's enemy(ies). Non-lethals do not fill that prescription; being hit by a taser isn't sufficiently traumatic to compel abandonment of long-held deeply rooted beliefs in the "destiny" of one's homeland to rule the universe.



But with a more convincing non-lethal weapon(I was thinking in that line) could a nation be defeated? If one could be developed.?

I don't know, for an example, what if the non-lethal weapon(a gas) could induce amnesia on those who were effected. The effect would last 10 years. What I'm trying to imagine, is if, non- lethal weapons might someday inflict serious enough damage a tyranical government would have to surrender.

Remember my initial post is conjecture only and not a statement of my politics.



Ike1947 -> RE: Non-lethal weapon Armies. In the future? (9/13/2008 2:24:24 AM)

It may well be possible to construct non-lethal weapons sufficiently powerful to "win" a war.  Keep in mind, however, that most nominally "non-lethal" weapons are lethal under circumstances of use other than those ideal for the particular non-lethal weapon; e.g., very close range for "rubber" bullets.  Winning the war isn't the same as winning; if that makes any sense.  In modern state to state warfare - and perhaps even in so-called "assymetrical" warfare as well - it is entirely possible to defeat the field army of an enemy and enforce a peace agreement with the original government or its successor; see, e.g. defeat of the Third Reich.  What is not possible in the absence of what I labelled "sufficient trauma" in my post is to change the thinking, the world view if you will, of both "the people" of the losing nation as well as of the members of "the government".  It is that world view which leads to war, it is why World War 1 was not "the war to end all wars"; the trauma was inflicted upon the losing combatants was insufficient to cause them to abandon the world view which lead to the war in the first instance; no change in attitude.  Note - to continue with the post-WW1 German illustration - how the defeat was blamed upon "November criminals", "race traitors" and others faceless factors and actors; not upon the genuine source, being the nationalism and worldview of the pre-WW1 German rulers that German was, indeed, Deuschland Uber Alles.  Similar results would obtain in any state to state war where the nominal loser of the war isn't defeated psychologically, only physically or militarily, if you prefer.  Very dangerous position in these times of suitcase nuclear weapons and similar small man-portable WMD.  (Forget biologicals and gas for practical reasons; but that's another argument, isn't it?) Oh, and I don't infer anything about a person's politics from what they post on forums; that's a silly thing to do from very very thin evidence and it's rude as well. [;)]



Paul Vebber -> RE: Non-lethal weapon Armies. In the future? (9/13/2008 3:48:31 AM)

quote:

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.


This assumes that the fate of the country is in the hands of its army. When the army is defeated, capituation of the state must ensue. Assuming that a "phaser on stun" can make all the adversary soldiers "fall asleep" so you can capture them, why would a country simply capitulate any more readily than they would submit to walking into the disintegration chambers?

The combat power overmatch that the US has against most potential adversary armies approaches this. When you can filed a force that can accomplish its military objectives with few casualties, whether you are killing the adversary of making him fall asleep to capture him is really immaterial. In both cases he has no effective means to resist by means of an army.

You have two basic strategies to use when confronted by such an enemy - one that prevents the US from projecting that power into your sphere- the "anti-access" strategy; or you simply don't field a uniformed army and you fight a guerilla campaign that makes it difficult of the US to sort combatant from non-combatant.

In both cases you remove the advatage provided by tactical overmatch by 'strategery'.



Sarganto -> RE: Non-lethal weapon Armies. In the future? (9/18/2008 12:22:17 AM)

There are anyway too many humans in the world...



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.90625