Battlefield Weapons Becoming Too Lethal Hist, Note splits to supers, robos

[philip347]

Battlefield weapons becoming too lethal Hist

Note splits to supers, robos//

The nature of Earth's battlefields, is becoming too lethal, in the way of conventional combat.

These are weapons that are being produced, that make even standing by, too dangerous.

*Source materials, see Future weapons, as aired on the DISCOVERY Channel, as becoming more and more lethal all the time.

These developments would means a few changes.

One, the nature of the soldiers fighting, would become genetically enhanced to run twice as a fast as a normal human, with strength parameters also twice to three times that range.

Two, a vented and encapsulated type of combination uniform body armor, that would allow its wearer, to experience more hits with shrapnel and or be hit with projectile rounds and still survive.

Three, the either letting go of the soldier all together, or combine troop movements, along with accompanying soldiers, that would stay to the rear, or in protected modes, while android or robotic soldiers would perform their task.

*Insert note.There was a published article, that in Russia under Joseph Stalin, that Russian scientists had tried to breed humans to chimpanzees.

There is also a note, that was published that a specially attenuate form of viral zombiism virus, was developed to be injected into people.

This development to where the key reflection within the tightly wound DNA helix, would reflect in vivo, percentages of super strength in a candidate soldier, but without the in cranial, deficient, that is noted with a regular zombie.

note www.FVZA.com, see Russian village sterilized, due to said experiment becoming loose.

Disclaimer:This author takes no responsibility, for the veracity of this printed said.

[dewanand]

I sure think you are right. In the USSR there were terrible experiments. I want to know what happened with the victims of all these experiments. Is there documentation? Are there survivors of eyewitnesses?

I think that these experiments are also going on in the USA in private laboratories and NASA is cooperating.

We humans are only good in massdestruction at this moment. I do not like this.
We will have to evolve faster. We are still apes with bigger brains and less hair.

nice story. look out for your security.

dewanand

[Rusty Shackleford]

Actually, if you watch things like Futureweapons you will see that battlefield weapons are only becoming more lethal to enemy combatants, while reducing collateral damage done to structures and non-combatants. The whole point of this type of technology is to make sure you only kill enemies and not innocent civilians, while reducing the risk of death or injury to your own soldiers. Take the current situation in Iraq, US forces are doing everything they can do avoid harming civilians and structures. It is the tactics of the enemy that are causing widespread death and destruction. They are the ones attacking civilians, trying to use hospitals and schools for cover, placing crude explosive device under roads and in civilian centers. The goal of advanced weapons is to be able to kill or subdue these enemies while protecting the lives of the innocents that these people prey on.

We have weapons capable of causing terrible destruction. We could in fact, just bomb our enemies and the entire population of their homelands off the face of the Earth. However, we do not. Why? Because our goal is not destruction and death. If we were as truly warlike and evil as most seem to think, why would we waste time fighting a war when we could just bomb our enemies into non-existence?

[Enthalpy]

Rusty, this is only a part of the picture!
Weapons become more precise to improve their probability of destroying the enemy. They save noncombatants as a side effect as well.

Think of bombs with submunitions. They kill civilians. Lots of civilians. But your country and mine use them because they are more efficient against enemies. The higher toll of civilians doesn't count first.

Think also of armor-piercing ammunitions. They have been made of depleted uranium (and even of recycled uranium, which is more dangerous) because its density pierces armors better. The uranium ash makes a destroyed battletank very unhealthy for many thousand years, meaning that many civilians will die of it. Again, the military efficiency was more important than saving civilian lives.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Well, depleted uranium munitions are used sparingly. The US armed forces are even switching to plastic bullets to avoid contaminating battlefields with heavy metals, a problem in years past. Is war perfect? No. Dead and wounded civilians and destroyed cities have always been a part of warfare and regrettably always will be. My point is that most modern militaries, especially the US and Britain, are doing the best they can to limit this. Part of this strategy involves improving weapons and operational tactics. Seriously, how many countries throughout history have given aid to all of their former enemies? How many countries have bombed their enemies with food and medical supplies? Right now, US soldiers cannot fire on mosques unless given special permission, even if they are currently taking fire from enemies inside that mosque. How many countries have made war on a nation, and then tried to give the people back their country?

Better weapons is a good thing. It will ultimately save lives. It is not longer necessary to blow up an entire building, if you have weapons that can take out just the targets in one room. This is the driving force behind these technologies. We already have stuff that kill quite effectively, but with refinements, we can make sure that we only kill the absolute minimum necessary.