OT: Neutralization of Firearms and Technological Weapons Discussion


New member
I personally like to think about classic war fought with swords and shields. Its romantic, the thought of there being some dignity in war, to fight face to face with someone, and having mutual honor and a basis on some sort of morals. To have respect for the victor because he was truly the better man. Almost all the way up to WWII or Korea, where we were fighting the evil japs and commies or the murderous nazi's. Ignorance is bliss though, as I'm sure war just sucks no matter what age you were in. Wish I had known my Grandfather's better, but since I'm older now I know why they never uttered a peep of what they had seen and done.


New member
I think back to Genghis Khan and how he managed to overrun Eurasia with a superior trained yet constantly outnumbered force that gained morale with every place it succesfully overran, to include China. Most Chinese actually no no form of kung-fu or martial arts. I think that the force who makes superior tactical decisions will win, as history has clearly shown through the ages. The force that has won too much shows signs of complacency on the battlefield when facing what it's leaders claim and boast is a numerically/power-wise smaller and inferior force. All it takes is an adaptation in tactics to overcome even the greatest of technological marvels. And while I have a great instance from my previous deployment, I'll leave that lie in my memory as OPSEC is the key word for the moment. Giving the enemy the opportunity to slice your exposed region is akin to idiocy.

I personally keep my Glock 23 next to the bed with 2rds 180gr JHP followed by alternating 180gr FMJ/180gr JHP all the way to the bottom of the 13rd mag along with the other 4 mags. Why? The first two won't go through the walls into my girls' rooms, by then I'll be in the stairwell facing downstairs, where it's GOMF!!!!
Last edited:


New member
I'm reading a great book, "To ride, shoot straight, and speak the truth" by Jeff Cooper. In it he talks about WWIII which from his perspective we are already in and have been since the late eighties, ie the spread of global terrorism. He say's that if we can win this war, we may not have to fight WWIV at all, the one where we fight with swords and shit. Unfortunatly our society today is soft and weak, and is unable to stomach what must be done for our own security. I know, I know, a little off topic.


New member
Read Mark Stein's new book, America Post Armageddon, he addressed the problems with america and its people leading to our downfall.


New member
Bringing our discussion on future weapons here.

Mass drivers - need to be reloaded. Requires shuttle launches and $$$
Giant laser - can be powered by solar panels. Only issue becomes recharge time.

The problem with large scale laser is first of power supply. Yes it is all fine and dandy saying solar panels, but you need to have a gigantic capacitor and battery unit on the satellite for it to be of any use. Then you come to the problem of refraction of the laser, which is a problem when ever you use lasers at all, much less from orbit. Also the weight and size of the equipment needed to contain and transfer all that power needed to get the laser down to the surface (with any sense of power left) would be massive and would take years to build and put up in orbit not including the cost of it all.

A mass driver system is for more effective all those respects. For one the damage to cost ratio is a hell of a lot higher. We are talking less than $500 million (based on current costs for group satellite launches). Then maybe another $400 million for the launcher and a full rack of ammo. You have to remember that while the whole concept looks crazy and radical, all you are doing in essence is dropping a heavy object from obit onto a point on the map. This means for cost of a single Navy Destroyer class warship you could have two of these system built and deployed into orbit. Each armed multiple rounds each of which are capable of wiping a small city of the map or leveling a mountain.

Honestly lasers are just not a viable battle field option at our current technology level. Due to not only cost but just the physicality of it. Yes I have seen that video of the laser being tested where it shoots down the missiles. That's fine and all but that system was immobile and very large. I can very much see that system as a replacement for our aging patriot missile defense systems, or on low flight large gun ship type air craft (AC-130); but at our current level of technological development it would completely nonviable not only on the front lines, but also in an orbit type situation. Due not only to cost but also the complexity and size of the object. You have to remember, just because it is in space does not mean a foreign nation will not try to destroy and/or sabotage it.