From: sdr57@cas.org
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Laser/Future Weapons
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:27:05 GMT
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio

In article <TiTNqB1w164w@geloser.CAM.ORG> chinja@geloser.CAM.ORG (delta) writes:
>      I can assume that many who have read this owns or owned a "Walkman"
>type radio. Packed full of electronics, if it has a cassette player, draws
>from the battery like crazy. If dropped,...... The battlefield weapon of
>choice, using bullets, is the AK-47. It can withstand almost any abuse
>from the user. I can not see in the near future the development of weapons
>discussed earlier.
>

The mention of the AK-47 got me thinking about this. The reason you
see a lot of AK-47's around is not so much because they are a great
weapon, but because they were built as the culmination of a design
philosophy which grew out of the need to rapidly arm large groups
of relatively poorly trained troops. This meant that you needed
weapons that didn't take long to master and which would work without
constant attention to cleaning, etc. Better weapons need more attention
and longer training to use properly than "civilian soldiers" or irregulars
would give or be given. The AK-47 was also relatively simple to make
using the available industry, and was widely distributed by the Soviets
to both their client states and to groups involved in "national wars
orf liberation," etc. Many of the parts in AK's can be replaced by
parts fabricated by relatively low-tech means (visit a weapon smith
along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border with your broken AK - he will
fabricate almost anything, although parts exposed to high pressure on
firing may tend to go bang at the wrong end), again a benefit in mass
warfare.

However, the current trend seems to be away from mass warfare and towards
smaller, professional armies provided with weapons of great destructive
capability. Professionals can use more complex weapons than mass armies
because you can take the time to train them right.

Further, personal laser weapons (provided you have a power supply you
can carry) would have one great advantage - they could be very rugged.
The whole weapon could be constructed so as to have very few moving
parts (a switch could be all that was needed, and possibly a removable
power source "clip"). If you got it wet, wipe it off. Fires underwater.
No problems with sand clogging the barrel or the action. All sorts of
things. And, from the point of view of governments, one other advantage:
there would be only a few factories making them (specialized equipment)
and, if one did break, you'd need a specialist to fix it - this would make
it easier for governments to control who has the things than it is
for them to control the mass-produced easily fixed gunpowder weapons
of WWII and later that seem to turn up all over these days - especially
since they would break more often in the untrained hands of irregulars
(who don't like to clean and otherwise maintain things anyway) than in
the hands of the government's professional troops.

This might be a reason for research - especially since terrorist
organizations and others would probably try to get the new weapons
and abandon gunpowder as quickly as possibly once they were
introduced (remember the frantic work by the allies to develop
a gun that fired through the props of their planes in WWI because
the Germans had on, despite the fact that there was really no reason
not to put the guns on the wings...), thereby effectively disarming
themselves at least partially. Just a thought.

******************************************************************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
		    -(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")

My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.

Stanley "Ya nee speon" Roberts