/k/ and /sci/

>>8626859
mechs are soooooo slow and useless tho buddy
drones are more likely to be the standard issue weapons of the future.

>>8626859
General Atomics Avenger with HELLADS, boom killer robot with DEW the future is now

>>>8626859
>killer robots
>directed energy weapons like lasers
>antimatter bombs
>genetically engineered lifeforms

Killer robots is feasible af
Laser weaponry is next. The latest rover on mars uses a powerful laser to split rocks away from other structures. Its also powered by a miniature nuclear reactor. Forgive me for forgetting the name but my astronomy professor showed us several pictures of it.
Antimatter bombs lol.
Genetically engineered lifeforms are already able to be produced but Mr. IHateScience doesn't like furthering the research by cloning so we are kind of stuck until the Man loosens its grip on the rights of clones.

File: a7f2995da1af36fc15b1ecec36d4b500.jpg (98KB, 736x572px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 736x572px

>>8626859
ok so standardized ammo?

micro drone lancers?

micro electronics to make heat seeking ammo?

>>8626859
Nanotech and cloaking technologies (Refracting light to render a subject invisible) are more feasible, they are still in their developmental stages though.

Railguns
Orbital bombardment
Anti missile and anti aircraft lasers
Drone swarms and decoys

File: 1464207044253.png (1MB, 1586x824px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1586x824px

come now a bioengineered chicken with throwback (dinosaur) DNA that was grown with cybernetic parts to control it

>see reference cyborg bugs used for surveillance
>see reference chickens have dino DNA and with a little help the older DNA can become dominant in a grown organism

>>8626859
>I don't think that full auto guns are the pinnacle of all human weapon development like apparently most of pop culture thinks it is
Until lasers or railguns or whatever sci-fi stuff people come up with becomes remotely as cheap, effective, and reliable as traditional firearms, they'll never replace them.

>>8626859
>killer robots

like autonomous drones?yes.

>directed energy weapons like lasers

yes.
>antimatter bombs

we do not know.
>genetically engineered lifeforms

no.

>Highly effective laser anti-air that causes line of sight denial.
>Low altitude semi-autonomous drones for both kinetic and spotting purposes.
>EW intensive battlefield
Beyond that the ground will still be men with guns.

>antimater
no
>biogen creatures
no

>>8626908
It's powered by a radiothermal generator which warms the rover amd provides a constant slow trickle of power. They're useless as weapons.

>>8628360
>>8628227
That's an interestingly flat no on engineered lifeforms, can you elaborate on this? Is it simply due to the fact that it is more effective at less effort to train people willing to fight in combat or drone control than it is to mass produce organisms to a practical scale for legitimate warfare? Or are there inherent problems with genetic engineering as it stands that would hinder even making a single practical organism for combat?

>>8626859
>military nanobots
>smarter and smaller drones with explosives
>EMP generators to counter nanobots and drones
>orbital weapons
>

I believe it's against international law to create automated killing robots/drones.

Extreme asymmetric warfare is the future:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/194675671100300303

In short, technology could enable any psycho to kill a lot of people and there is no way to predict what this technology will be

>>8628502
nope.legal

>>8628502
it is also against international law to use cluster ammo and landmines, but problem is that majority of relevant governments ( China, USS, Russia) did not sing that...so it does not apply to them

>>8626859

Propaganda has and always will be one of the deadliest weapons. Political leaders have the Internet, namely social media, at their disposal to perpetuate their ideas.

>>8628502

You can do whatever the fuck you want with enough power

>>8628377
the main problems with genetic engineering is the weakness of biological materials such as muscles and bones,and while those can be increased to be more efficient,artifitial muscles are made of much more flexible and durable materials:imagine an autonomous robot solider and a bio engineered solider,lets say its a squat competition and they both have to lift a car lets say a Toyota corolla(1260kg),the robot has carbon nanotube legs and the engineered one has 99% efficient legs,the starting weight is 100kg,how much weight will they add up?getting the calculator we get that the engineered human will have to weigh 358kg to squat a corrola and the robot 125kg,in short biological material is too weak.

File: confirmed.jpg (35KB, 636x288px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 636x288px

What would have to be developed to make a thermonuclear weapon that works without a fission primary?

Just how "clean would a pure fusion weapon actually be? Would it kill you with radiation, produce fallout, or irradiate things?

does anyone else think mechs are just horrendously impractical pieces of shit

>>8629785
i do.because they are.

>>8629130
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5VNnmAoIYI&ab_channel=EnigmaHood

>>8626859
>Posting Hawken
Why?

>>8627110
Well, kinda hard I suppose. Many situations are only in about 50-100m, so I think that the bullet would have too high velocity to be able to effectively change course. But what do I know?

>>8626859
>killer robots
um ok? That's vague as fuck. Arguebly there are already killer robots as most components of vehicles are automated or have assisting automation.

>directed energy weapons
They already exist. So far I think they've been used for disabling but not killing a human at long distances and for blocking certain projectiles. Neither of these are particularly useful and can be done better with conventional tech.

>antimatter bombs
Possible but not practical, you could just make several thousand nukes and they would be easier and more cost-effective than whatever would result from that.

>genetically engineered lifeforms
This would be biowarfare, using specifically made viruses and diseases for population destruction or control. I doubt you'll ever find specific lifeforms that fill conventional purposes.

>>8627294
This
The fastest firing firearm is presently the GSh-6-23. It can fire 10,000 rounds in 1 minute, we could likely create an autocannon that fires upwards of 40k rounds in 1 minute, it's just not very useful. Autocannons as a standard weapon for basically anything will likely never be replaced.

Though for actual targeting and destruction missiles and other explosives are used more and more. They've become more efficient and deadly.

Most proposed future weapons can't even function on-par with these, let alone be produced as effectively and cheaply. They have an extremely narrow application at best, at worst completely useless.

We will ever have Starship troopers-tier of Power Armor?

>>8626859
lasers are useless against mirrors so they're hardly going to spend all that money to develop weapons that can be neutralized by a piece of reflective glass

>>8626859
Casaba Howitzer.
Grav trapping an asteroid to impact a terrestrial target and running interference on anything that tries to stop it. Or better yet, letting someone nuke it to cause fallput damage over their havitable zones.

>>8629923
infinite ammo

when real AI is invented everything will change. it will be cheaper and more effective to build robots than train human soldiers, the winners of wars will be determined almost solely by manufacturing supply.

I'd say energy weapons are likely just to dispel the need for physical ammo supplies and reloading weapons.
mechs are within possibility but honestly unless AI is still in progress I doubt the iron-man thing will ever be commonplace except for show.

I also have this fantasy that really effective methods for blocking ranged attacks will be created and that fighting will start being close-range again, and then we'll start inventing lightsabers and shit. but of course that's not very likely