Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Military technology: Magic bullets

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 93 posts

Re: Military technology: Magic bullets

#71

Post by ryanwaggoner »

grannyg00se wrote: post #33
icegreentea wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Hague forbids bullets that expand on penetration, on the basis that it creates larger and more traumatic wounds. This round acts more like a grenade. It explodes (and wounds/kill by shrapnel) near the target. It shouldn't actually hit the person. Completely different class of weapon. It's more accurate to call this a grenade launcher than a rifle.

It always seems so absurd to me that there are rules around wartime killing. Once you acknowledge that it is acceptable to take another person's life for profit you really have little credibility for laying out rules of fairness.

You were on your way to an interesting point until you made the implicit claim that war is always about profit. For pretty much every war, that isn't true for at least one side, and often for both.

Re: Military technology: Magic bullets

#72

Post by cabalamat »

grannyg00se wrote: post #33
icegreentea wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Hague forbids bullets that expand on penetration, on the basis that it creates larger and more traumatic wounds. This round acts more like a grenade. It explodes (and wounds/kill by shrapnel) near the target. It shouldn't actually hit the person. Completely different class of weapon. It's more accurate to call this a grenade launcher than a rifle.

It always seems so absurd to me that there are rules around wartime killing. Once you acknowledge that it is acceptable to take another person's life for profit you really have little credibility for laying out rules of fairness.

The motivation for the geneva convention etc is not so much fairness but to prevent unnecessary suffering.

Re: Military technology: Magic bullets

#73

Post by tlb »

dimitar wrote: post #3

$25 bullets and $25000 rifles are insanely expensive. And I don't see how better rifles will bring an advantage - most coalition casualties are from mortar fire and improvised explosive traps - rebels have already lost preference for gun standoffs. But I'm sure H&K and Alliant will love to sell lots of these to whatever army is corrupt enough to buy them. Also... aren't exploding bullets illegal under the Hague conve…

It costs about $1M / yr to maintain a US soldier overseas, so those costs aren't a huge deal.

Re: Military technology: Magic bullets

#74

Post by cabalamat »

Cushman wrote: post #57
Sharlin wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically true; however, in practice, you must rifle the barrel of any grenade launcher, or else have tail fins on the grenades to prevent aerodynamic tumbling. Tank guns, cannons, howitzers, and the like typically have rifled barrels but we don't call them rifles. (Mortars, on the other hand, use finned ordnance.) AFAIK rifles are usually defined to have a caliber at most 20mm.

Ah, but we do. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle .

Most of which, ironically, are smoothbores.

Re: Military technology: Magic bullets

#75

Post by starwed »

gvb wrote: post #24
__alexs wrote: post #4

Surely it's just a 1 axis accelerometer and perhaps a lookup table or some basic maths? The military sure do like to make themselves seem important. Super secret alien assault rifles being attacked by unspecified hackers from unknown locations. Yep, better keep funding new and exciting ways to kill people.

No. An accelerometer measures change in acceleration. When the round is fired, it will experience a huge acceleration from the propellant along its axis plus a very large rotational acceleration as the rifling spins the round from 0 revolutions per second to a large number of revolutions per second. Once the round leaves the barrel, it is falling at a constant acceleration (9.8m/s, freefall, 0G, "weightlessness"), so…

What? An accelerometer does measure acceleration, but relative to the free-fall acceleration.

That's different than measuring the change in acceleration.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometer)

Re: Military technology: Magic bullets

#77

Post by coldarchon »

TomGullen wrote: post #68

Sounds like a good way to counter this sort of weapon would be to have human shields. I'm not sure if that's an improvement on the situation if they start to adopt those sort of tactics. Enemies will simply adapt to new weapons they face. Much like a bucket of paint would be quite effective against and remote control mini tank. Whilst the engineering feat is impressive, it is still important to note that at the recei…

Just have look at the Wunderwaffen of the Nazis in WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheintochter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav

Did it change anything when the Russians let 13.500.000 of their soldiers die while for every 3 of them there was someone with a gun at the back of their head to make sure they wouldn't flee? The T-34 was the most successful tank in WW2, but his gun couldn't even hurt the Tiger tanks. Advanced technology will only help on commando operations, not in a war.

Re: Military technology: Magic bullets

#78

Post by electromagnetic »

nhangen wrote: post #62
schraeds wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The American battle rifles aren't a weakness, they serve their purpose well. The military should be focused on things like IED detection, preventing brain damage from concussive force, battlefield intelligence, social programs (hearts and minds)... the stuff we are having a hard time doing.

The M4 is accurate, but lacks the power of something like an AK-47, which hits harder and has a larger round. It's great for clearing a room or working in tight spaces, but it's not nearly the same as this. Additionally, they are working VERY hard to improve IED detection, and in fact are making quite a bit of headway in that regard. The same goes for every other issue you raised. There's no reason you can't improve…

Improving offence helps you improve defence. If you make the most dangerous weapons in the world, then you solely have the ability to figure out the best ways to defend against them.

The US will have a significant advantage in developing jamming systems against these types of rounds.

The US isn't afraid of some Afghan insurgent living in a cave from developing a countermeasure against these new munitions. They're afraid Russia or China will be capable of developing a countermeasure. The rounds are worthless, or potentially dangerous, if you can cause premature detonation.

Re: Military technology: Magic bullets

#79

Post by antoncohen »

Sharlin wrote: post #5

Nitpicking a bit, this is a grenade launcher, not a rifle. Explosive 25mm (or 40mm!) rounds are grenades, not bullets.

True, it is grenade launcher. One thing that makes it more rifle like is the trajectory, it's much flatter than a 40mm grenade launcher. M203 and M320 grenade launchers launch long range grenades in a high arch, like a long football pass.

Re: Military technology: Magic bullets

#80

Post by thisrod »

sharpneli wrote: post #19
__alexs wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Afghanistan even get covered by that stuff since no formal declaration of war has been made according to Hague Convention III?

IANAL but that has some problems. First of all the convention mandates 'declaration of war' in a sense that you have to tell someone you're attacking. If it was skipped then it was against the part of the convention mandating such notification. Secondly the other parts of the convention do not talk about war as a set of specific circumstances (e.g requiring declaration of war) but just hostilities regardless on how t…

I understand that changed when the UN was formed. Its member states aren't permitted to start wars, period.
Post reply on HN