RE: New DSII weapon system

I do have to agree with Tom in most respects here.  I like the idea of
an 
EMP weapon - it fits in with a sublethal force doctrine, but that
doesn't 
seem a very common doctrine (I personally think it's a bad idea outside
of 
crowd control, and that's not what armies are for, regardless of current

American thought - my ESU Field Police units, however...).  While I do
like 
the idea of EMP effects, i don't use them in my systems, because
everything 
is optical by that point.  Older systems may be more susceptible, but a 
laser or MDC kills 'em just as dead as a particle beam (my favorite way
of 
inflicting soft kills), if not better.	Anyway, the current militaries 
don't seem to be all that worried about EMP weapons - it's the financial

institutions (who don't design their systems to survive a nuclear 
battlefield) who are worried.  EMP is actually rather easy to generate,
but 
it requires a lot of power, and may or may not have detrimental health 
effects.  The standard context in which it is studied is atomic blasts,
and 
the health effects of those outweigh that of an EMP emission :).

Noah

-----Original Message-----
From:	Thomas Barclay [SMTP:Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca]
Sent:	Friday, August 07, 1998 04:59 PM
To:	FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject:	Re: New DSII weapon system

Tom spake thusly upon matters weighty:

>      The PA troops, on the other hand, would be immobilized after a
zap
> from a HERF gun.  I'd still let 'em shoot, though, 'cause I'm a nice
> guy.

1. You're talking about a mega-cannon here. Pretty unbalancing it
seems.
2. Why wouldn't it affect the targetting and weapons control circuits
in PA? If it'll stop PA, then it'll stop PA's weapons rig.
3. I would only imagine the PA would be shielded against such
threats. Perhaps this thing should have a penetration that applies
versus shielded targets of D10 or something and PA should roll its
armour die against that (assuming it has EMP shielding).

I don't believe high frequency emissions are
1. that easy to generate
2. that healthy to generate (can you say cancer, Mr. rifle bearer?)
3. that healthy to be the target of
4. something that military minds of the future would be unaware of as
a threat, hence shielding, fields that block it, weapons that use its
own emissions as homing targets, etc. would all be developed. I don't
necessarily think such a weapon would be such a runaway success as it
seems that people might want to imagine.

Let's just think how many times people have said "This is the
ultimate weapon" or "This will make infantry obsolete" or whatever.
Most of the time, a counter is devised, and such predictions are in
grave error. It may be a tool in the arsenal of the future soldier,
but it is not the tool that renders him obsolete, of that I am
certain.

Just my 0.02.

Tom.