Re: [SGII] Fire of AT Missiles at disperesed tagets
From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@g...>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:21:10 +0100
Subject: Re: [SGII] Fire of AT Missiles at disperesed tagets
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:41:40 +0000, Richard Kirke
> 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
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.
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again. We're looking for thousands of Persians."