Re: NBC

  Well, without sitting down to think too much about it, my first
thought
would be that the trend has been to have fewer men.  Hundreds of archers
or pikemen, tens [or hundreds] of musket in a line, tens of rifle, half
a
dozen rifle.  My impression is that the weapon lethality and area of
coverage has been increaseing far faster than defence has been.
  At a guess I'd say that in the future squads might be 2 or 3 people as
any more would be overkill for taking things out, but no more usueful
for
ensuring squad survivablity [so when you lose a squad you lose twice as
many people]

  Hmmm, another example might be tanks.  Someone was musing about them.
You have to figure, 150 years the AI is going to be pretty good, good
enough that you won't need someone in the tank.  With a good power
source
and anti-grav, and a computer behind the wheel, a tank whipping through
a
dense forest at 300+ miles per hour pulling 20+g turns and doing this
all
in complete silence is not hard to believe.  Add to that limited flight
or
at least pop-up ability, and limited burrowing, and potential aquatic
ability...  That isn't WW2, and it's well within the scope of the
proposed technology.
  If you won't let your cold dead hands off the controls for the tank as
you insist someone be controlling it, remote control or technology
capable
of keeping a human alive through high G is an alternative.  Both may be
a
reality in less than 50 years.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 2/24/00 2:15:59 AM Central Standard Time, 
> sportyspam@harm.dhs.org writes:
> 
> <<   The point I'm trying to make is, instead of ripping off some
weapon from
>  WWII, rip off some weapon from Terminator or Ghost In The Shell or
Gal
>  Force.  Instead of trying to make the rule fit with some grunt in the
>  vietnam war, make it cool, make it sexy, make it high-tech.	Heh. 
Make it
>  fun.
>   >>
> 
> AS long as you have men dong the pointing and shooting HOW is it
different 
> from WW 2 - at its essence?
>