Doug BrotherofCats Dandridge

In part one of this blog entry I discussed projectile weapons, which may still be a factor in infantry warfare for many centuries, maybe even into the next millennia. Nothing at all like our projectile weapons, they will instead use magnetic propulsion to achieve the great velocities needed to penetrate future armor. They may also be explosive, or have the capability to explode on contact. Shaped charges or superhard penetrators may aid in armor penetration. So what about other explosive shells? We use grenades today, both thrown and propelled. In World War 2 the rifle grenade was a fixture of many battles, allowing the infantry to use explosive charges against both other troops and armored vehicles at range. And today the grenade launcher is commonly used, firing a small shell with much greater range and accuracy than a thrown object. A couple of years ago I saw a grenade the size of a twelve gauge shell, fired from one of those shotguns using a drum magazine. That is the way I think I will go, with smaller grenades that can be fired from devices built into rifles, or possible rapid fire from a dedicated launcher system. The explosives we use today will not suffice, and we will either have to develop more powerful chemical explosives, or something else. One possibility is antimatter. Now before anyone freaks out about the use of antimatter, remember, in very small quantities it is not the continent destroying bomb of Star Trek. One atom of antihydogen, an antiproton, combining with one proton, would not even be noticeable. And it can be scaled up from there, until we could have any possible charge, from a firecracker up to a large conventional bomb. Of course there is the danger inherent with antimatter. It takes power to contain antiprotons in a magnetic field. Ammo sitting around might go off spontaneously if it runs out of power. Some kind of warning device would have to be incorporated.
In Exodus I use a crystal matrix battery as a power source, feeling that chemical batteries would not suffice for storing the energies needed for emergency functioning of large military vessels and vehicles. These same batteries, or whatever they come up for real to solve the problem, could probably be rigged to release all of their energy in a burst, like a grenade. One advantage to this might be the programing of the grenade to go off with a particular force. A small charge for a single target, like that needed to stun a single soft target such as a terrorist. Or maximum charge against hard targets or groups. Hand grenades might still in use, with the same programmed charge as the propellant grenades. They won’t have the range of the propelled weapons, though being thrown by a soldier in a strength enhancing armored suit might give it quite a bit of range. Will weapons like mortars be practical as organic support weapons? We can already track them on radar today, and methods are being developed to knock incoming shells down with lasers or sound, so they may become obsolete. Or, using some futuristic countermeasures, they may be able to get through to the target.
We have drones today that can loiter in the air for hours before seeking a target. In the future drones may be the answer to indirect close support weapons, though being nowhere near the size of what we use today. Drones the size of birds could be used for surveillance, and then sent in to attack when needed. Or better yet, insect sized pizzoelectric drones could saturate an area, sending back the sights and sounds of the battlefield. And when needed they could be vectored in to a target, in dozen, hundreds or thousands, they could provide a satisfactory assault on a target. Infantrymen could carry containers of insect or smaller drones to release when needed. The major problem with the smaller robots would be vulnerability to EMP, background and aimed, so the small robots would probably be carried in shielded containers until needed.
What about blade weapons? Not swords, though Larry Niven had a contraption called a variable blade that was a strand of monomolecular wire held in a stasis field, capable of being deployed a meter or a hundred meters from the handle. Other writers, like Ringo, use monomolecular blades (the boma blades of the Posleen) that can actually cut through armor. I don’t think a blade weapon would be of much use in normal combat, but might be useful in close in situations or as a last resort. Maybe mounted on the armor itself, like the blade weapons of the alien hunters in the Predator movies.
Which brings us to the topic of light amp weapons, lasers. Lasers have been used and misused in science fiction for decades. Thought by some to be the death ray of ancient scifi, they can be an effective weapon, with limitations. In some past TV shows lasers have been shown to be disintegration beams. Lasers basically put photons into an object and generate great heat. It’s a hole burner, though it can also be used to cut things up. In space, lasers suffer from a limit of range, as the beam does spread over distance, and spreads greatly over great distances. Also, at range, it takes time to get to a target, time in which the target can move. In close in combat neither is a problem. On the surface of a planet or the corridor of a spaceship it is beam of destruction that hits instantaneously. Modern lasers generate quite a bit of waste heat, and hopefully this problem will be solved in the future, with efficiencies approaching ninety-five percent or more. Lasers can be generated in many frequencies, across the spectrum, visible and invisible. Gamma ray and X-ray lasers would be very powerful, and would bypass some of the defenses that visible light lasers might face. Of course, lasers are invisible, unless there is a lot of dust or debris in the air, such as would be encountered on most battlefields.
Light amp could vaporize a target, a topic which will be discussed more in the section on energy weapons. Enough energy could turn soft tissues into superheated steam, and even burn bone, leaving little more than some seared chips behind. Of course the question would be, why bother? In most cases killing the target will be enough, and a soldier may want to conserve energy. A burst of light strong enough to burn a hole in the target would probably be enough. Why waste the power? A heavy weapon might use a continuous beam to burn through multiple targets, or sweep through a charge, sort of like the final protective line fired by modern machine guns. But cutting the enemy into two pieces should be enough, unless they have a very unusual biology.
The limitations of light amp? For one, even though the beam is invisible, in an atmosphere with a lot of particulate matter the beam is very visible. Even with a short burst there would still be a line linking target with firer, a shout of here I am. With a long burst it would be like a neon sign. And particulate matter, be it dust, fog or rain, would also absorb some of the beam. Lasers work best in clear atmosphere or no air at all. This might not always be the case, as some of the work the Navy is doing shows that some forms of laser may penetrate clouds just fine. The targets may have their own forms of defense to limit the usefulness of lasers. Reflective materials can defeat the beams, maybe only for a short time, time enough for the target to get to cover. Light bending fields could also defeat lasers, such as the fields being tested for practical invisibility today. Even if they don’t totally stop the beams, they may attenuate the effect enough to provide survivability for a target wrapped in sophisticated armor. If they’re just wearing red shirts? Well, then they probably get burned really badly.
Part 3 will discuss other energy weapons, like particle beams, and hypothetical weapons that act on matter in various ways (can you say disintegration beam?)