Future weapons

Jones Henry

Banned Idiot
What do you think future weapons and weapon systems will be like?

One thing i've been thinking about a lot lately is nanomanufacturing. It's all sicifi for now, but so was an atom bomb back in the 1920's!

The idea basicly is to make things atom by atom. For instanche atom bombs today are about the size of a microwave, maybe even bigger. That short of a bomb is difficult to smugle even to the US, wich is today a true heaven for illegal immigration.

But consider an atom or antimatter bomb the size of an aple. It's difficult to spot even with sensitive scanners, and surdenly no missile shield can block it. So while america spends billions and yeat again billions in to projecting itself from possible Chinese missiles, a Chinese general can place thousands of bombs in the US, because there so cheap to manufacture. In the mean time he can play a litle "catch up" game with the us, finally driving the country bankrupt while desparetly trying to make itself invurnable. And then if the US were ever in it's desparecy to threat China with first strike...

The orher thing i've been thinking is a super sonic fihgter that could operate in space, and shoot down for instanche enemy satelites or place new once. Basicly i think future technology favors smaller countries, while placing obies strain on the us, whos desperately still trying to keep a hold ot it's global "hegemony" Then theres of course EMP weapons. If China would pocess EMP missiles it could easily make for instanche an american aircraft carrier unoperational. And then theres of course "mininukes" and so on. One thing a new armsrace always could cause is a world war 3, where the US would launch a desparate first strike to both China and Russia to stop them from developing new deadly weapons. But by then America would allready be a targer to almost every terrorist group imaginable. The truth is, that thanks to the globalism(the free movement of people, money and ideas)and future nanomanufacturing it would almost be imposible to make yourself invurnable from these short of attacks. So a new world war would be true armageddon to the entire planet:eek:

Then i've been thinking about nanoweapons, althow i'm not quite sure how they operate.

Basicly a missile shield wouldnt be quit so protective against these short of weapons. But China and Russia should ofcouse also consentrate on new deadly missiles. At the same america should be pressured to join some short of a new ABM treaty banning all weapons in space and possibile missile shields all together. But if america refuses to expect MAD(Mutuallu assured destruction)then China and Russia should focus on new deadly weapons development. It would basicly the US:s own fault. Gorbatsev allready offered Reagan a similar treaty wich was quite good, and the Soviets obiesly under the rule of Gorbatsev were not anymore threatening the free world, but Reagan still refused. I think force only works with America. We have seen that clearly with the Cuban missile crisis, Vietnam and now Iraq. America will not setle for anything unless it's basicly forced down it's throat, so Russia and China should consentrate on making new deadly weapons because America isnt anymore going to come to it's senses. Smaller, more faster and deadly multiwarhead missiles. possibly even stealth once. Alltogether i think america would have to give up it's missile shiled project, since it probobly wouldnt work against economic and military super powers like China and Russia, and the so called "rogue states" would even bother to use one, since there are a lot cheaper ways of delevering WMD:s to americas own soil
Last edited by a moderator:


Junior Member
"delevering WMD:s to americas own soil"

I've noticed something that's somewhat chilling... many people on this board are able to say things like the above quote as if they were saying, "Hello."

Do you guys even know what this means? WMDs mean Weapons of Mass Destruction. Mass Destruction means the death of thousands, maybe millions of innocent people. Killing someone who's trying to kill you is justified as self-defense, but killing innocent people?

True, the US military is probably one of the biggest threats to any country that is not taking benefits from it, but that does not necessarily reflect on the wishes of its citizens! I am a ABT (American Born Taiwanese) so I am technically American though I have been living in Taiwan for the last 7 years. What I'm trying to say is that most of us don't want to kill anyone else. People say, "Well you idiot Americans voted for Bush, so it's your own fault you're hated all over the whole world."

Nearly 50% voted AGAINST Bush, people who knew better, who weren't as brainwashed, who knew that Christianity wasn't what Bush said it was. But they lost, and they took the loss gracefully, for that's what you do if you are a true citizen of a democratic state. If only Taiwan's people could learn this lesson... Anyway, killing millions of these people with WMDs would only make China guilty of genocide, and how would it be justified? The use of a nuke is only justified when you've been hit by one, at least in my opinion. Even the US, the bully in this world doesn't dare use nukes because it knows it would be condemned worldwide, even by the most amiable of allies. What I'm saying here is that using WMDs doesn't help anyone here.

Back to the topic of nanoweapons... Perhaps I don't know that much of physics and chemistry and nano technology, but what my high school teacher taught me was that nano technology basically means "Making things smaller and smaller" in plain English. I can't really figure out what you mean when you say "Making things atom by atom" so I'll assume what you meant is, "Make really small stuff."

I seriously do not believe that future military technology will not benefit small countries, there is simply not enough money to waste on those high tech weapons. Take military aviation for example. Only the US which was very strong economically back when it started developing the F-22, or a rising economic power like China or the powerful Soviet Union back in the 80s was capable of researching and building advanced combat aircraft. Only by banding together could the European Union create something of similiar capability, the Eurofighter.

My point is that the only countries who can afford those high tech weapons will be China or the US, and personally I think that all that money could be easily spent for the betterment of mankind. I loved to research weaponary when I was in elementary school, but gradually, after I've slowly grown up (I just graduated from high school) I realize how much money was dumped into a never-ending arms race, how unfair the world is.

There are still people in this world who don't know where their next meal will come from, have problems just trying to stay alive each day. And not just in Africa, there are people like this is China and the US also. We here who are able to spend time on the internet posting on boards like this are very priviliged, and I think the least we can do is appreciate it.

Granted I don't think there's much we can do about the government spending billions and trillions of dollars into equipment only meant for once purpose.

To kill.

So Jones Henry, I believe that in terms of technology, I think what you are proposing is certainly possible. But is it the right thing to do?


"the engineer"
henry jones, what is your background in nanotech?? most of us here know what/where our opinions come from and can decide for ourselves what we can trust. for example, anything Golle says on artillery is a must read, because he was in it. and bd popeye served in the US navy, so he's opinions on navy definitely have its value. i would like to know what you study and exact where you from, since you are always talking about nano-tech and weapons made from it. want to know where you are getting your imformation on this.

also nano-tech is not as easy as it sounds. the physics and math is completely different at the atomic level. for example, the peng-robinson equations can not be applied to hydrocarbons on a atomic level, and ideal gas law or some of the real gas laws can't be applied to molecular level particles. same goes for the laws in electrical engineering and material engineering.


Banned Idiot
you make us kids look so stupid.
but this forum is about how the tech is used, so please refrain from making overly complicated equations that are harder to understand than chinese.


"the engineer"
migleader you talking about me??? i didn't talk about anything too complex, simple question for henry jones, which he seems to avoid every time i ask him. i personally don't know that much on nano-tech, just what my friends studying it told me. now if only i can get my hands on their 400 dollar each text books on physics and materials.


Senior Member
Henry, have you ever heard of the term critical mass? For an atom bomb to go through nuclear fission, you need a certain amount of fissible material, known as critical mass. That is why you can't have an atom bomb as large as an apple. It wont be able to achieve nuclear fission.


Junior Member
I think PiSigma has a point: from where does Jones Henry get his information? I personally get most of my information from open sources (i.e. books, the web etc.), and therefore I believe it when somewhen who actually have first hand information on something tell me 'this is the way it is'.

Jones Henry, could you tell us what your source is? Personal experience/studies/work? The internet? Books? This is not criticism, just curiosity.

Sgt. Gross

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Speaking of future weapons, does anybody have any information regarding a Chinese OICW program? I only got this from a videogame (Ghost Recon 2 to be exact), but I can't help but wonder if it's real or not. I tried looking it up on the Internet but, to my surprise, there is nothing. That's why I wonder if it's fictitious or not.

From what I saw, the T-95P (I think it's called, but now I forget, crap) is a neon-green colored hulker of a rifle which uses the 5.8x42mm for its rifle, and 30mm (I think, and I also think they're air-burst like our OICW's 20mm HE) grenades that are fed from a clip fitting in front of the trigger. The carrying rail we're all familiar with is replaced by a large scope. I think the T-95P is equipped with cameras and the like that enable the wielder to shoot from a corner without having to peep your head over, once again just like our OICW.

Anyone got any ideas or info?