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.