Re: [SGII] Fire of AT Missiles at disperesed tagets

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:41:40 +0000, Richard Kirke
<richardkirke@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Because "stun" offers such a consequence free environment...

The sort of idiots that would put a stun setting on an infantry weapon
and expect it to be used on a regular basis are the sort of idiots
that would wig out when that 1 in 10,000 guy with a weak heart drops
over dead.  Using even non-lethal force indiscriminately is not
consequence-free.

Not saying non-lethal options aren't a good thing.  That's what
Surefire underbarrel flashlights are for--anyone who doesn't consider
that a non-lethal force option hasn't gotten blinded by one lately. 
But if the added complexity causes a failure, it doesn't affect the
firepower of that primary weapon system.  Unlike a complex electronic
set of options to precisely tune the output of a beam weapon system.

If you are operating in the sort of universe where there are 100%
reliable electronics that can calibrate power outputs so precisely as
to "stun" 100% of all human targets (from a 8 year old child to a 310
lb man on an adrenaline high) without causing any long-term harm to
any of them, you are no longer playing a science fiction game.	You're
playing a fantasy game.

John
-- 
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani