• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

fity nine cents a shot

more than fity nine cents, I'd wager..
dem rails ain't cheap:cool
 
fifty nine cents a shot.

forty billion a "gun".

two hundred and fifty trillion in a yearly repair...and software up grades contract. :rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl


.
 
Why do they say this:

Officials stressed that this weapon will not be used to directly target people on incoming ships or planes, but is designed to disable weapons systems or the crafts that could pose a threat to a ship.
Click to expand...

Is it because the weapon wouldn't kill someone quickly enough? Or the image of someone being burned through with a laser isn't consumer friendly?

Or is there a technological reason they suck at burning flesh? Because I would doubt that.

I mainly ask because wouldn't shooting and killing someone with your .50cal be the same as burning a hole through someones head with a giant military laser weapon?

Also check this one out, still classified and nothing has been heard since its originally testing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER
 
Last edited:
MikeL said:
Why do they say this:



Is it because the weapon wouldn't kill someone quickly enough? Or the image of someone being burned through with a laser isn't consumer friendly?

Or is there a technological reason they suck at burning flesh? Because I would doubt that.

I mainly ask because wouldn't shooting and killing someone with your .50cal be the same as burning a hole through someones head with a giant military laser weapon?

Also check this one out, still classified and nothing has been heard since its originally testing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER
Click to expand...

It is because Energy Weapons used against infantry is a direct violation of the Geneva Convention. We have had some plasma weapon plans floating around for a while that have not been developed for that reason also.
 
MikeL said:
Why do they say this:



Is it because the weapon wouldn't kill someone quickly enough? Or the image of someone being burned through with a laser isn't consumer friendly?

Or is there a technological reason they suck at burning flesh? Because I would doubt that.

I mainly ask because wouldn't shooting and killing someone with your .50cal be the same as burning a hole through someones head with a giant military laser weapon?

Also check this one out, still classified and nothing has been heard since its originally testing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER
Click to expand...


I'll bet they know, and eventually it will leak out. I imagine its messy.

"So Abdulla was standing there one second, then there was this pink cloud. And now I have some new sandels!"
 
Eldritch said:
It is because Energy Weapons used against infantry is a direct violation of the Geneva Convention. We have had some plasma weapon plans floating around for a while that have not been developed for that reason also.
Click to expand...

TIL, didn't know energy weapons used against infantry is in violation. That's a good thing, but if the bad guys get lasers, and we know they will. They won't care.
 
MikeL said:
TIL, didn't know energy weapons used against infantry is in violation. That's a good thing, but if the bad guys get lasers, and we know they will. They won't care.
Click to expand...

Yeah, technically Flame Throwers used against infantry is a violation too. I forget which convention it was, but the bit about energy weapons was written a long time ago essentially to ban fire as a weapon of conventional warfare. No pissing a trench full of gasoline and throwing in a match.
 
I don't believe that it costs 59 cents a shot. That may be the amount of energy used, but it doesn't last forever. It's about like looking at the cost of just the bullet rather than the entire cartridge.
 
SM610 said:
I'll bet they know, and eventually it will leak out. I imagine its messy.

"So Abdulla was standing there one second, then there was this pink cloud. And now I have some new sandels!"
Click to expand...

:rofl
 
to H with a old out dated non binding agreement.
lets put high energy lasers in orbit...to protect our orbiting nuke missile platforms. :afm199


.
 
MikeL said:
Why do they say this:



Is it because the weapon wouldn't kill someone quickly enough? Or the image of someone being burned through with a laser isn't consumer friendly?

Or is there a technological reason they suck at burning flesh? Because I would doubt that.

I mainly ask because wouldn't shooting and killing someone with your .50cal be the same as burning a hole through someones head with a giant military laser weapon?

Also check this one out, still classified and nothing has been heard since its originally testing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER
Click to expand...


probably something fast enough to nullify evasion devices. jets and whatnot.
 
Eldritch said:
It is because Energy Weapons used against infantry is a direct violation of the Geneva Convention. We have had some plasma weapon plans floating around for a while that have not been developed for that reason also.
Click to expand...

Eldritch said:
Yeah, technically Flame Throwers used against infantry is a violation too. I forget which convention it was, but the bit about energy weapons was written a long time ago essentially to ban fire as a weapon of conventional warfare. No pissing a trench full of gasoline and throwing in a match.
Click to expand...

From memory it didn't stop the use of flame throwers in Vietnam and CIA torture more recently, so I doubt it's the reason. Probably just usual skunk projects that will get unveiled few years down the road. If they are successful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top