NEW Advanced Tech Rifle

a reply to: Expat888

The thing is I have been in combat in the CURRENT operating environments (Over 8 years combined in N Ireland, a tour of Sierra Leone, one of Kosovo, 2x Iraq and 3x Afghanistan). Yes some technology does fail but much of it makes you so much more effective.

A good example is GPS. This was an absolute must have in Afghanistan. The maps were of poor quality and we needed to be able to call in CAS/CCA/CASEVAC quickly and accurately. The GPS allowed us to call in air power to the metre which was a huge force multiplier. Trust me when I say that seconds count when you need to get a casualty out. However we still train with good old map an compass and are regularly tested in proficiency with them. Could we have done it with maps and compass alone? Absolutely. But the technology made it so much more efficient.

I am not sure about this rifle. I can see the utility of it in peace keeping where you are at high risk of hitting civilians. I don't think I would like it on an actual war fighting op where you can't always identify the target. However I refuse to subscribe to the attitude that all technology is bad.

A refusal to accept progress leads to institutional inertia and places us at a disadvantage. This piece of technology may not be great (or it might be), but I refuse to dismiss it off hand.

a reply to: PaddyInf

Yes.. technology has its place ... but dont over rely on it .. hone your skills and abilities .. all too often people rely far too much on tech.. seen and known ten year olds that could hit targets at 300 meters with open sites consistently ( both in combat and back in the world) ..
also.. no matter how much tech improves someone will find a way to defeat it .. charlie didnt have the high tech toys yet managed to do serious damage to the better equipped american forces .. best weapon anyone has .. and the one that cant be taken away is their brain ..

originally posted by: TrueBrit

There are many things about this technology which are impressive, but until they develop a gun that cannot fire on an unarmed target, this will be just another "improvement" which increases the lethality of a weapon, without increasing the morality of its user.

...umm, why should a weapon have any effect on the morality of the user? Who is supposed to be in control here, the workman or the tool? Isn't that just passing the blame on to an inanimate object so we don't have to worry about having any innate sense of morality?

"Sorry, guv, I didn't want to do it but the gun leapt into my hands and forced me to kill those people."

"Morality" starts with the user and ends at the trigger finger. Anything past that point is simple mindless mechanics.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. The gun is just the tool.

Edited to add: and what about the "unarmed target" who is racing across the room to activate the detonator on a bomb in a hostage situation? How does your "moral weapon" handle that situation?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I saw this on TV. They made a test with a guy flying a drone around and the guy with the gun locking on and trying to hit the drone.
Missed every time.

a reply to: EvillerBob

What I am saying, is that there is no point to this bit of kit, because it will not be as reliable as its less technologically complicated counterparts. You are absolutely right about the morality issues, without doubt. However, the reality of this situation is, that no one who needs this sort of technology in order to effectively put a round on target, ought to be in control of a firearm unless under instruction by a qualified armsman of some sort. It should certainly not be deployed in war, for that exact reason.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: EvillerBob

What I am saying, is that there is no point to this bit of kit, because it will not be as reliable as its less technologically complicated counterparts. You are absolutely right about the morality issues, without doubt. However, the reality of this situation is, that no one who needs this sort of technology in order to effectively put a round on target, ought to be in control of a firearm unless under instruction by a qualified armsman of some sort. It should certainly not be deployed in war, for that exact reason.

Ah. I completely agree with these sentiments. It wasn't what I picked up from the original post. My apologies.