Comments on: Computerized Smart-Gun Can Shoot Someone Behind a Rock

By: Brian Too

Brian Too — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 01:52:32 +0000

Didn’t I see this on Future Weapons or something? They had a gun that fired projectiles on a delayed fuse. The idea was to fire a round into a building or through a compound wall. Rather than exploding against the outer surface the round waited a few milliseconds to punch through. Then it exploded on the other side, causing much more damage.

By: Michal T.

Michal T. — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 23:38:51 +0000

Yo jeffrey, you no we don’t do it to kill people. Ii think we should pull out, though.

By: Michal T.

Michal T. — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 23:33:09 +0000

Ii think that we should save the economy

By: dicka

dicka — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 20:13:08 +0000

Does this replace an existing grenade launcher? What does it weigh. Weight is the foot soldier’s enemy; they are already overloaded. However, if vehicles make long treks unnecessary then weight is not as important, if there is room for transport.

By: chemfro

chemfro — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:33:28 +0000

Stilt,
Just for the sake of military accuracy, many guerrilla armies have been beaten by organized armies. The Japanese engaged in guerrilla warfare on many different pacific islands … and lost. The U.S. faced guerrilla war against many of the indigenous populations in the Americas, and defeated them. The U.S. faced guerrilla warfare and insurgency in the Philippines near the turn of the century, and General Pershing defeated them. The Romans faced guerrilla forces in Gaul, Germany, and Britain and defeated them (probably elsewhere). Many of the guerrilla groups in Iraq have been defeated. The FARC in Columbia are guerrilla warfare practitioners and are being defeated. The confederates in the U.S. civil war applied guerrilla warfare for a brief period of time, but did not experience any success, and abandoned the strategy.

History is replete with examples. The U.S. is still dealing with a lack of confidence after being smacked around in Vietnam, and I think that this is the source of this lack of understanding regarding warfare. But its important to remember that it wasn’t just guerrilla tactics that lost us Vietnam. The North Vietnamese had a compelling message, which they propagated successfully. They garnered support from communist China, the Soviet Union, and eventually large populations of the western world. They won the war politically, not on the battlefield.

By: jeffrey

jeffrey — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 15:47:25 +0000

its all means of killing people thats all. why dont we use babanas instead of pistols?

By: stilt

stilt — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:09:12 +0000

when you have they folks over there using public places and spaces to conduct suicide bombing. your gonna complain that if they are hiding by going into a house, which they were prob in for a ambush, that they get blown up by a new gun. its designed to save lives and to limit the destruction that is caused.
in the history of warfare no organized army has ever beaten a guerrilla army. also the guerrilla army doesnt care that it kills civilians, and if they do most of them dont care nor listen when someone complains about it. in Vietnam thye used women and children for bombing and also using them for razor blade and knives attacks. they Agans are doing the same thing but with bombs that kill hundreds!!!!!
sometimes you have to fight the enemy the way they fight you. but with this new gun we dont have to!!

By: Idlewilde

Idlewilde — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 04:22:06 +0000

How are the goodguys in movies supposed to win NOW? The badguys always have better equipment, so they’re doomed. Gone are the days when a pleather clad, tanned hero can dodge from one rock to the next,avoiding barages of bullets and fending off meanies with a nothing but a pistol before making a getaway in a convieniently placed van.

By: chemfro

chemfro — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 01:57:47 +0000

Woody and Justin,
We are the first nation in history to invest billions in R&D as well as billions in purchasing weapons that REDUCE civilian casualties. We build bombs that can can fly into a window and kill one dictator (if we know he’s there). In WW2, it took bombing an area the size of two to three football fields to hit a telephone relay post, now it takes one well placed munition. So Justin, your suggestion that woody is making a point about correlation between munitions and civilian casualties is misplaced. Civilian deaths have decreased, not increased by modern weapons developments.
There was a time when the finest weapons technology consisted of a 30 lb double edged bronze sword. It was customary to enter an enemy city, raze it to the ground, kill all men, and sell the women and children into safety. At any given time, this would be taking place thousands of locations, all over the world.
I’ve heard it said that the Samurai sword killed more people in WW2 than any other weapon. While I seriously doubt it, the point is well taken. Japanese soldiers killed some 10 to 20 mil chinese, and often did not want to waste bullets.
The point is… civilian casualties in warfare correlates more closely to poor governance, societal acceptance, and military professionalism than it does to types of weapons. More precise weapons gives the U.S. a greater chance of avoiding unnecessary deaths. Our intent to do so is evident by the amount of money we spend trying to do so.

By: amphiox

amphiox — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 21:16:07 +0000

Great. Does this monster check to be sure there are no innocent children also hiding behind the obstacle, too?

That is the responsibility of the man whose finger is on the trigger of the gun. And always has been. For every gun that has ever been made.

And always will.

By: Jan

Jan — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 16:15:20 +0000

Any complaints about this weapon can be discounted because we are in a WAR. War is hell and innocent people will be wounded and killed. The problem is the innocents who are killed on purpose by evil people. Not this weapon. My son was ambushed and wounded with the National Guard while he was helping rebuild. No weapon will make war any better.

By: Happy Phil

Happy Phil — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 08:38:17 +0000

What ever weapons we have, can be taken away and used against us. These could be used by anyone, with or without firearms skills. Bad idea.

By: Iain

Iain — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 01:09:20 +0000

Dudes, how many children are dragged onto a battlefield to be a shield? NONE! Human shield is where you hide in houses etc. behind the civilians that would be killed in a bombardment. You don’t drag them around like a Hollywood action pic. The part that really piques my interest is how heavy is it? I know I didn’t like packing around a 17lb ‘gun’ and ammo for it, but being a big guy it was mine.

By: epv

epv — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 23:01:03 +0000

This weapon replaces a 500lbs bomb. Previously an enemy would be in an entrenched position that couldn’t be safely assaulted so an air strike would be called in. Killing everything in the house or everything in a 15-20m radius with substantial collateral damage.

This replaces that with a 5m kill radius and limited collateral damage.

And who’s fault is it if someone engages an armed force in an occupied civilian dwelling? If a parent cashes out his kids college fund to buy a car, surely you don’t blame the dealer for stealing from the child.

By: Woody Tanaka

Woody Tanaka — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:52:58 +0000

Bigby, go to hell if you don’t care about innocent people being killed.

By: Justin

Justin — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:05:26 +0000

Well, I think the point Woody raised is the correlation between increases in firepower/armaments and civilian mortality. With grenades, you have a very large increase in potential damage over rifle rounds, and this laser-targeting version is no different.

So if your target is hiding behind a corner, or under a windowsill, US forces will now be able to detonate a grenade immediately adjacent to that target, greatly improving their odds of a successful kill/injury, while simultaneously demonstrating how difficult it would be for opposition forces to carry on a gunfight with an American platoon. However, you will likely see a dramatic increase in grenades detonating in civilian/insurgent homes and communities, with the corresponding rise in non-combatant casualties. While a sniper, previously, would have targeted and shot an armed combatant directly at up to 500 yards or whatever, you’ll now see a grenade launched an identical distance…and since grenades explode in a spherical pattern, well, you get the idea.

Of course this has the potential to revolutionize warfare, to give an edge to a better equipped American military (imagine how the guerrilla tactics used by American Revolutionary forces against the British would have worked, if the British troops had weapons like this and thus the American colonists couldn’t hide behind trees and in second story windows, etc.). But also imagine how many more bystanders will be hit by shrapnel, and keep in mind the US military’s policy of not actually confirming the accuracy of civilian casualty estimates that are drawn up before operations.

I find it hard to swallow that the world will not see an increase in non-combatant injuries, once these grenade-launchers become fully integrated into combat tactics.

By: Bigby

Bigby — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 20:43:29 +0000

Woody,
You, sir, are an idiot.

By: Woody Tanaka

Woody Tanaka — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 20:40:08 +0000

Great. Does this monster check to be sure there are no innocent children also hiding behind the obstacle, too?
The new motto for the US military should be “why worry about murdering more innocents when we have neat toys to kill forrign people!”