The delicate balance of power

[Osborn F Enready]

I would like to bring a topic to light, that I haven't seen discussed yet.

When speaking of the balance of power between nations, and their people, the small-arm has been the guard of that balance of power since the creation and adoption of the small-arm by nations for their armies.

No matter how big, or how powerful a nation becomes, if its populace is armed, it has always been thought that in a situation of dire need, that armed populace could "throw-off" its current government by revolution, as a last ditch effort to restore public order, and faith.

The situation at hand, is threatening to this age old balance of power now more than ever before, with the creation of the "anti-bullet bullet".

So, what is the "anti-bullet bullet" you ask? :eek:

Well, an "anti-bullet bullet" is a round designed to render ineffective incoming small arms rounds. According to the latest news sources, it is still in the "developmental stage", but as we all know, if it is in the news, it is past the "developmental stage", and is in the "application perfection" stage.

It is a round with a built in microchip used to aim the round by steerable "fins" much like a mini guided missile. The microchip is fixed on target by a super-fast reacting radar, that constantly scans the coverage area, and once a target is identified the weapon fires automatically and the "anti-bullet bullet" homes in on the incoming round at more than twice its speed. Once the "anti-bullet bullet" gets within three inches of the incoming round, it ignites an internal plastic/chemical explosive that both partially reduces the effectiveness of the incoming round as well as causing a change in trajectory that causes the incoming round to tumble through the air further changing course and losing speed.

They already have used guided/explosive munitions in many applications, one being individual soldier fielded weapons, such as the OICW.
http://mae.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...icle_ID=148187

My question is this. (thread topic)

How will this technology change the balance of power, and what value does this technology have on the International market?

I think most people could guess where I stand, but I would like to hear what others think about how this technology will MOST likely be used, and not how it "could" be used.


What bearing will it have on the equation if the company producing the "perfected" round is an independent company, and that companies location geographically?

Keep in mind, an Austrailian company has already started refining the latest in technology of weapons. The Metal Storm company has introduced into the world of warfare one of the most deadly weapons ever conceived. A weapon capable of delivering more than (1 million rounds per minute) on target in varying combinations.
http://www.metalstorm.com/04_the_technology.html

The U.S. Army is already looking into contracts with this Austrailian company.

"The US Army Research Office has listed Metal Storm on its web site (http://www.aro.army.mil/arowash/rt/a...h2_company.htm) as a company selected for award of a Phase II SBIR in 2005. Awards are made subject to successful completion of contract negotiations with selected companies and the availability of funds. Based on current information Metal Storm expects this negotiation process to be completed by the end of September 2005."

The balance of power as we know it is practically gone, and the question is, what will fill that void?

[G. Adams]

I think if you want to be ready for potential revolution you should be training in small explosives to begin with, and this is an occaision where they would come in handy. You could also use mortars to deal with the operators of this weapon.

Another thought, how well will this deal with heavy fire? I can't imagine the radar loving 10 000 round going off around it.

[Critter]

I can only hope it doesn't end up coming to this.

[SteveA]

I have to admit things can even be worse than this. This is only one such technology that has such a possible impact. There many others that possible things that can be done with technology that would appear close to magic to many people.

Consider how the simple creation of the A-bomb impacted the ability for a small group of people to hold hostage almost any place in the world hostage and we've made exponential "gains" (or losses, depending on your view) since then.

The way I see it though is that people are still rule by consent. We don't have mind control (yet). Everyone is still free to decide what they support or don't. As far as I know, we only have one life. Do the best you can with what you have and try to learn and teach people what impact their decisions have. Though sometimes it seems like sides, we're still all in this together and what goes around, comes around and though I don't truly subscribe to religion there's a lot we don't know about how the universe operates, even something as simple as where our consciousness originates hasn't been explained satisfactorily, in my opinion, and I have a feeling that though some things seem enormous from one viewpoint from another they are unimportant, while other things gain in significance.

If matter/energy can't be create or destroyed and we can even see it and work with it - why would something as intangible as a conscious mind be something that could be created or destroyed by physical actions? I know that's what people call a soul. Well, I guess the point is it's not impossible that there is a purpose or plan to things, or larger picture. I'm not trying to encourage resignation to it, I'm saying it could be important to assure you have a voice in how this larger picture is painted - I have a feeling it will be around for a while.

[RickSp]

"Anti-bullet" bullets? I am sceptical whether the technology is anything but science fiction. I am sceptical if it is even good science fiction.

Let the army spend our billions of tax dollars, I don't think they will change the real facts of the ground. The US army can destroy any army in the field but cannot effectively combat a dedicated and resourceful insurgency.

[SteveA]

Hey, Osborn!

This is the ultimate libertarian invention!

You get everyone one of these and weapons are obsolete. If someone wants to rule over someone else, they've got to do it the old fashion way, roll up their sleeves and brawl.

[Osborn F Enready]

G. Adams said:
I think if you want to be ready for potential revolution you should be training in small explosives to begin with, and this is an occaision where they would come in handy. You could also use mortars to deal with the operators of this weapon.

I say:
Well, actually I don't think you understand how the weapon works. The weapon sits at the center of a circle of defense. The circle of defense is created by the coverage of the radar that operates the weapon.

Take for example the Phalanx weapons system which up until recently, was on every Surface War ship in the U.S. Navy.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm
The Phalanx is a non-descriminate defense mechanism, that is also controlled by Radar. When it is activated, ANYTHING that flies within its operating range without permission that is bigger than a basketball, is reduced to "particles of debris" about the size of a basketball. The Phalanx is a vulcan type, gatling cannon. It sprays 20mm DU or Tungsten tipped or SABOT projectiles at approximately 3500 to 4500 Rounds Per Minute.

This new Metal Storm weapon, is much the same in the sense that it sits at the CENTER of the area of coverage, making it THE hardest target to hit within that zone of coverage. Now, for a moment, imagine a small heavy armored vehicle, about 20 feet in length, 7 to 10 feet wide, equipped with two pods, one pod containing the Metal Storm gun package, the other pod containing the Anti-Bullet Defense Array. Both pods are self operated, with manual over-ride capability. This system could be capable of destroying hundreds of targets per minute, possibly in to the thousands under ideal situations. The Metal Storm weapon system can engage both fixed, and incoming targets simultaneously. This is the nexus of technology and warfare, and man is almost non-dependent in the situation once the system is operable. This would be just one vehicle in a FLEET of vehicles.

To me, short of an EMP weapon, or super high velocity weapon, this vehicle would have no conceivable weakness except during reloading, refueling, or machine or operator malfunction.

Speaking of EMP weapons...... word has it that the many of the Phalanx weapons systems in the Nacy are being replaced by a new short-mid range EMP weapon of some type. Details are still foggy, but this new EMP weapon is about the equivalent jump from the Phalanx in technology and capability as the technological comparison between the old AGP 4x 16 bit graphics card compared to the new PCI-Express 512 bit graphics cards. Night and Day improvement on all levels of measure.

G Adams said:
Another thought, how well will this deal with heavy fire? I can't imagine the radar loving 10 000 round going off around it.

I say:
Well, I know these weapons are purpose built, so they are probably well adapted to any enviroment we will be able to throw at them. Look at the changes made since we first made the mistake of deploying "Cold War" purpose built equipment into Desert enviroments. We learned that each enviroment poses significant stressors on the equipment, that have to be accounted for in design, since retrofit once in the field is un-reasonable, costly and an incredible burden atop the burden of warfare. With this in mind, most new weapons of war are created with this in mind, and I believe the technology and practicality of the new weapons systems will be unlike any we have ever seen before.

Real weapons, actually being built by contract now, more resemble science-fiction weapons than any other conventional weapon we have seen before. If this system continues un-impeded, by 2010 our Armies will look more Starship Troopers than grunts, and they will rely more on technology than ever before, further removing the decision making, judgement and compassion that Generals consider the biggest weakness in the human link to warfare.

I think that the future is becoming pretty clear, and I don't like much of it at all. The thing is, people need to see what is coming, before they understand how serious and grave it is that the course is changed.

I hope some people, are now opening their eyes, and keeping in mind how detrimental an "Oliver North" incident with weapons of this type, could be the end of the world as we know it. :eek:

[Osborn F Enready]

Critter said:
I can only hope it doesn't end up coming to this.

I say:
As the old saying goes.....
"Hope in one hand, and shit in the other. See which one fills up first."

As much as I think we all hope it won't come to that, I think it would be in our best intrest to provide for the situation should it end up coming to that. The best way to provide for the worst situations, is to brainstorm what the worst, most unlikely scenario is, and plan on it. Add reality, the horror of war, murphys law, human shortcomings, technology, and you get a deadly stew of all the lessons we have not yet seemed to learn.

The worst part is in this case, that this scenario is not unlikely, it is not that far fetched, and it is actually materializing right before us, in a logical, developmental series of progressions. We have it within our power to stop this progression, but we as a people must first RECOGNIZE the problem, before we can address the solution.

RickSP said:
"Anti-bullet" bullets? I am sceptical whether the technology is anything but science fiction. I am sceptical if it is even good science fiction.

I say:
How many people believed we would land on the moon 20 years before it happened? How many thought we would have wireless hand held phones 20 years before it happened? How many thought we would have computers as powerful as they are, in a 20" case 20 years before the first PC?

I understand your natural desire to scoff at this type of notion. I am a realist, and knowing that the bounds between reality and sci-fi are becoming blurrier are even more disturbing to people of my ilk I would bet. The point is though, ITS HERE, ITS BEING PERFECTED, and it will soon be on shelves at an army supply base near you. This makes it an unfortunate reality we MUST prepare for on all levels as a society.

I don't believe in making false predictions, and most often any predictions. However, when so much of the evidence lies before us, it is getting more difficult to create reasons, stories, or illusions and allibi's about why this can't or shouldn't happen. THE WORLD is in an arms race, and always has been. Where does the obvious end lie? How can an arms race end? The balance of power between people and their own nations, is becoming a larger and larger gap. The balance of power between nations is more divided than ever, and growing at an exponential rate.

The Iraq war will be pointed at for years, to further exemplify the need for unmanned, or remote controlled weapons of war. It is the ultimate example of how in a world of bullets, technology has played a minor part, but not much overall. Guerilla tactics can still penetrate, weaken and wreak havoc on any military that relies on human ground forces, no matter how gross the gap of technology between the two armies. As long as both rely on smokeless powder and the art of the rifle, they are still limited under the same physics. Add a new dimension, remove the human from the equation, along with all the supplies necessary to support those humans, and you have a somewhat low maintenance (compared to humans) war machine that has no emotion, no truly exploitable weaknesses other than refueling, recharging, reloading and very limited losses of human life, thereby reducing the "perceived threat" of war.

While war has always been expensive, it has been the human cost in lives that weaken peoples stomachs when considering war. The further we remove human loss from war, the more war we will have, and the less compulsion to initiate aggression. It is human nature.

RickSP said:
Let the army spend our billions of tax dollars,

I say:
That is not my opinion, but you are entitled to your opinion of how they spend the extorted money of the American People.

RickSP said:
I don't think they will change the real facts of the ground. The US army can destroy any army in the field but cannot effectively combat a dedicated and resourceful insurgency.

I say:
BS in my opinion Rick. The US armed forces can destroy any enemy it intelligently plans to combat.
The Iraq war is the exact epitome of bad planning, bad preparedness, bad theory of warfare being executed.

The men on the ground are doing a great job WITH WHAT THEY HAVE, but they are not armed, equipped or satisfactorily protected by the planners and suppliers of the wars design. They have been dropped into a hostile enviroment, underarmed, undersupplied, undermanned and with no clear logical plan of attack, as much as a policemans mentality and goals.

The Cold War was head-shededd for years, and most every piece of our arsenal was designed around that conflict, as well as our tactics have been largely geared towards uniformed, national armies. We are facing guerillas, that are resourceful though not well trained, well-equipped for their piece-meal goals. These guerillas know the land, how to survive on it, and with it, and understand how to exploit an enemies lack of that knowledge. They strike in many places, causing a large area of unrest, and perceived weakness, forcing large supply lines for our troops to maintain and many areas to supply. They appear to be regular citizens before and after the attacks, and they blend in to the enviroment at will, with no compulsion for human life around them. They exploit our compassion towards the innocent, the wounded, the helpless. They exploit our technology by attacking when it is least usable.

Even after all this, they don't need to win to claim victory. They only need to claim that they have "weakened the beast, that is the U.S. War Machine." President Bush has made this a war of ideology, and that was his biggest mistake, because any small victory against the "Machine" is a major victory to a massively overwhelmed force. It shows that the "machine" is not infallible, and that it is capable of being weakened, and eventually destroyed. I imagine how any mouse would feel that had the opprotunity of watching a fellow mouse run off an elephant.

The bad part about using a good offense as a good defense is that once the enemy figures out a way to weaken, or paralyze your offense, your defense is non-existant. That is why the philosophy is flawed in the modern theatre of war.

Layered offense and defense, with specialized purpose designed assault forces is how we have won our wars, stayed in front of the game, and led the world in the arms race for so long. We have lost our edge, and have now begun to pull out all the stops, because our purpose for our armies has changed from defense, to global offense, and the eventual progression toward one world government.

The game is changing, and the answers are harder to find everyday. I fear what inaction by the people will bring, as history has plotted the course for all to see, but so many rarley heed the stale lessons of history in hopes for progression beyond all past achievements.

Often, this blind hope loses out to histories cold lessons.

[Osborn F Enready]

SteveA said:
I have to admit things can even be worse than this. This is only one such technology that has such a possible impact. There many others that possible things that can be done with technology that would appear close to magic to many people.

I say:
I have often pondered the concept of the establishments ability to create a "false" rapture through the use of holograms and special effects technology to influence peoples ability to operate. Imagine a holographic return of Christ, amid the crumpled towers of Jerusalem...... the psychological levels of exploitation that could be attained are unreasonably un-nerving. Imagine the religious segments of all societies believing the end of the world, or armageddon was upon us.... the reality would be unimaginable, and so far reaching as to effectively cripple the entire globe. It would disrupt order long enough, for the worlds superpowers to unite and effectively employ a new world of "fictional" order, serfdom, and lack of rationale.

Extreme? Yes. Totally impossible? No, actually somewhat achievable with current technology.

SteveA said:
Consider how the simple creation of the A-bomb impacted the ability for a small group of people to hold hostage almost any place in the world hostage and we've made exponential "gains" (or losses, depending on your view) since then.

I say:
I agree, and the exponential increases are becoming larger gaps every day.

SteveA said:
The way I see it though is that people are still rule by consent. We don't have mind control (yet). Everyone is still free to decide what they support or don't. As far as I know, we only have one life. Do the best you can with what you have and try to learn and teach people what impact their decisions have. Though sometimes it seems like sides, we're still all in this together and what goes around, comes around and though I don't truly subscribe to religion there's a lot we don't know about how the universe operates, even something as simple as where our consciousness originates hasn't been explained satisfactorily, in my opinion, and I have a feeling that though some things seem enormous from one viewpoint from another they are unimportant, while other things gain in significance.

I say:
While I fully understand you point, I think there is much credence to the lessons of history. Just as surely as we know that governments have never expanded liberty of their own doing, they also have never shown to resolve international conflict without blood-letting. Look at the increase of use of violence by governments against their own people, and the less and less intolerance is tolerated.

I agree that a grass roots movement of all levels of citizenry affects the outcome, but the timelime for this to happen gets shorter and shorter every day, and so far, the pace of citizen education is far behind the increase of governmental power. It doesn't take much to see that the outlook is grim at best for this movement to work, without more national recognition of the movement itself. I don't see national recognition coming from a corporate owned, government advocate national media anytime soon, nor do I see significant battles being fought in the house and senate. The stage show is losing much of its intensity, and is going from a A+ production to at best B-movie standard.

SteveA said:
If matter/energy can't be create or destroyed and we can even see it and work with it - why would something as intangible as a conscious mind be something that could be created or destroyed by physical actions? I know that's what people call a soul. Well, I guess the point is it's not impossible that there is a purpose or plan to things, or larger picture. I'm not trying to encourage resignation to it, I'm saying it could be important to assure you have a voice in how this larger picture is painted - I have a feeling it will be around for a while.

I say:
While I agree, I also understand that all I know is in relation to this thing we call life. I can't recall any other time, or other body from which I previously existed, nor can I recall another consciousness with which to relate to problems of this consciousness. I am a product of what I have seen, read, heard, and what has happened all around me, therfore I can only relate to these things in the ways I have been taught we relate to these things.

In this consciousness however, I have been blessed by some means to have a mind that is both creative, and analytical, compassionate yet cold. Our depth of thought our strength, so often left un-explored due to the constraints of this thing we call life, and its imposed bounds and limits.

All I know, is that I am bound by conscience to best protect my, and my fellow citizens and humans rights to live freely, as they see fit. Allowing a war machine of this magnatude to be created, is not in our, or anyones best intrest, regardless of who is building it.

The balance of power, while limited to smokeless powder, is controllable in all scenarios of people vs nation, or nation vs nation. Once that boundary is lifted, we are all exposed to a cruel new world the bounds of which we can't yet even fathom. I see this as the gravest threat to personal freedom we have ever seen, and when coupled with the progression toward more strong central government that this administration is pursuing, I can only see disaster as being a realistic possibility.

[SteveA]

I say: I have often pondered the concept of the establishments ability to create a "false" rapture through the use of holograms and special effects technology to influence peoples ability to operate. Imagine a holographic return of Christ, amid the crumpled towers of Jerusalem...... the psychological levels of exploitation that could be attained are unreasonably un-nerving. Imagine the religious segments of all societies believing the end of the world, or armageddon was upon us.... the reality would be unimaginable, and so far reaching as to effectively cripple the entire globe. It would disrupt order long enough, for the worlds superpowers to unite and effectively employ a new world of "fictional" order, serfdom, and lack of rationale.

Dude!

I've thought of this exact same thing too, no joke.

In my humble opinion, damn, you're a smart guy.

Yes, you could use ground based lasers to create an imagine in the sky that would appear ghostlike and radiating, though it would be difficult to make it appear the light was being radiated equally in every direction (though camera lenses can create a similar 'flaring' and movies often use this effect, so people could become desensitized to such an artificial way of radiating light).

Anyway, yes, there are plenty of people that can see Jesus in a rusty tin can, so I don't doubt there'd be a lot of believers.

(And then for the non-believers we can just create a UFO with some aliens)

Also, computer graphics have become real enough and media sources centralized enough that it's not impossible to imagine people could be fed entirely bogus news for quite a long period of time before enough conflicting sources would get people to question the validity of it.

With regard to weapons, I'll pass on describing how something as simple as a single moderately powered laser could cripple an entire city or stop hundreds of troops etc. and I know we have even more "creative" people working in downtown government with even more resources. But it's not just governments capable of these, we're generally at the mercy of the good intentions of a lot of people. If the war on terror doesn't address motivation, it's a lost war and considering the continually underestimated ability of our leaders to overreact to most things, we're even more susceptible.

[Osborn F Enready]

Quite a mess we've gotten ourselves into this time Abbot.

[Osborn F Enready]

I am disappointed.

2,417 members, and this thread only has this many remarks.

This begs me to wonder if it is a lack of caring, a lack of understanding, a lack of intrest or just plain inability to contemplate the material and form an opinion worthy of posting.

No insults intended toward anyone, just a little disheartening.

[Critter]

Can't talk now, I'm hiding in my own personalized bomb shelter a couple thousand feet below ground. :eek:

Anyone who wants can join me; I have plenty of food down here.

[PatrickHenry]

Osborn, of more concern to me than the actual hardware is the attempt to remove the citizen-soldier from the equation. I feel that the high tech weaponry is always up for grabs if the opposition can penetrate the consciousness of the GI. Invent killer weapon systems to assault liberty? I will STEAL your vehicles, weapons and ammo and turn them against the tyranny!

But what if the Global Elitists begin using Super-Soldiers? I am not speaking here of the special armoring and fatigue fighting drugs being researched, but rather the attempt to genetically manipulate people to become conscienceless killers. There are also proposal to use drugs and the electro-magnetic spectrum to enhance various psychological aspects of the fighters. This shit could make it impossible to subvert the tyrant's military with the prospect of liberty and idealism.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...05/wpent05.xml

[Osborn F Enready]

I understand your point Pat, but I have to chuckle because stealing a modern weapon of war is not quite as easy as jamming a screwdriver into the turn signal of an '80s automotive product and popping the cylinder lock.

My concern is the REMOVAL of the physical ability to fight back with arms in reasonable numbers, and to remove effective weapons from the hands of the people.