Highly Advanced Weaponry

Think you need to consider that hand-held weapons used in infantry-style combat are considerably different than weapons mounted on ships and used to attack other ships. I am assuming you mean weapons used for offense and not defense, but similar caveats apply.

If the ship is a star ship, capable of some sort of FTL travel, I would think just leaving the immediate vicinity (i.e. running like hell) is the best defense against any weapon. But depending on how you move faster than light (by just going really fast or by making instantaneous jumps from point A to point B), you could devise something that would just place a bomb set to go off when your opponent re-emerged from hyper space.

It irks me that so many of SF films depict battles in space that are based on 20th century aerial or naval battles. Those ships and planes move through a medium (air or water) not vacuum, so they take advantage of that medium to maneuver. A vessel moving at any speed in a vacuum will need to expend tremendous energy to just change direction slightly (let alone do 180° turns like an FA-18 can) and such vessel will need a considerable volume of fuel. Therefore, to shoot a torpedo (or energy beam) up your opponent's exhaust pipe, you get into position and have one or two chances. If he's the one shooting you in the rear, you must undergo tremendous inertial forces to avoid him.

I think the best way to do damage to a space vessel is to hire spies to hang out in port and sabotage it.

As for personal weapons, there isn't a lot to say against ballistics, except when you're inside a pressure vessel (space station or rocket ship). Sonics are conceivable, but no one seems to remember that when you turn up the volume, everyone hears it, including the shooter. And energy weapons need bulky power supplies, although I suppose if you have very small power packs that have vast amounts of power reserves (like any good TV ray gun has), then you have only one problem: suspending my disbelief.

Good luck.

Spaceships moving at any speed are enormously vulnerable to impact from solid objects. Throwing rocks still works!

TSByrne said:

Assuming a virtually unlimited level of technological sophistication, what would be the weapon of choice for both infantry and starships?

Click to expand...

Infantry: guns that shoot laser beams, only they move slower than bullets and they're not actually a beam but a bolt. And they have to go 'azowazow' or 'woowoo', or maybe--if you're feeling daring--'pootpoot'.

Starships: really big guns that shot bolts of green or red light. Or sometimes blue. Or yellow, if you like that. And they have to go 'baZOOGabaZOOGa' or 'brBUBoombrBUBOOM!'

That would so rule.

Anti-matter projectile generators.

A gun which is really a pinhole portal into a universe in which the Big Bang is underway.

Or how about a hyperspace lance, which rotates what it hits through the 4th dimension?

Once you have teleportation, then weapons become very advanced.

Just teleport a cubic meter of the sun's surface into your enemy's ship.

They have shields to stop teleporting into the ship? Fine. Then teleport a cubic kilometer of the sun's surface a few metres to one side of your enemy's spaceship - just outside the range of their shield. Continue doing this until their shield finally fails. Even if they can 'port out of there, then you have forced them to move.

If they have advanced technology (like replicators) then what are they fighting over? What resource is scarce?

If you figure out that, then you can figure out how to poison that resource for the enemy. That's the weapon.

Mac

utter obliteration

TSByrne said:

So the question is this:

Assuming a virtually unlimited level of technological sophistication, what would be the weapon of choice for both infantry and starships? Everybody in my universe worth talking about uses reverse engineered weapons from a race so powerful it could do everything that's supposed to be impossible (FTL travel, anti-gravity, perpetual energy devices, Maxwell's demon, and so on), so it needs to be something really formidable.



Cheers!

Click to expand...

You might want to look into the classic Iain Banks (Excession, Use of Weapons, the Player of Games, Against a Dark Background) where essentially deception is the ultimate weapon because there are plenty of easy ways to completely annihilate anything. This actually makes for better plots since every plot is about layers of deception, but there are still some very poetic moments of wonderful violence.

I say classic Iain Banks, because lately he seems to be writing in a more stripped down style. I prefer the Baroque excess of Excession, for example.

Dang! I forgot the primary weapon of choice. Humans have used it in every battle forever.

The fist.

Only, sorry, Euan, the sound effects aren't as cool as yours: "Biff!"Just more colorful

Oh, the Possibilities....

Byrne, you got my wheels turning with your question. Given the things you say your civilizations are capable of, I'd say you have pretty much free rein to come up with whatever you want. The trick will be making it plausible to your readers.

First, let me say I haven't read much SF since the late eighties, so I don't know much about what is out there right now. Plasma weapons were pretty much cutting-edge when I last read much in the genre.

That said, I know a little about weaponry and tactics, so let me see what sort of suggestions I can give. I'll try to keep it somewhat short. I'm going to address ground combat pretty much exclusively--somebody with a little experience in naval warfare can talk the ship-to-ship stuff.

Your first hurdle is why they would go to war in the first place. Mac H. addressed that above, so I won't go into it.

Your second hurdle is why they would go to war directly against each other. I think societies with the level of technology you mention would be very hesitant to do so; Mutual Assured Destruction, the sort of uneasy detente we had with the Soviets back in the seventies and eighties, would be a more or less permanent condition. It would be much more likely for the two societies to fight by proxy, each attacking less-advanced peoples to try to destabilize the other. Like we did in Vietnam and Afghanistan. I'll assume you've cleared this hurdle already.

After you clear those two obstacles, you need weapons. When designing weapons, it is useful to consider the effect you want first, then try to fit a form to it. What do you want the weapon to do? Now you know that, what does it look like?

For example, let's say I want a weapon that will completely obliterate a single target without harming anything around it--a reasonable goal given the level of technology you have described. What might do that? Maybe some sort of antimatter projectile.

How does the projectile get to its target? To keep things interesting, let's say teleportation of antimatter is impossible. That means it has to be launched from something, or launch itself from some sort of magazine. Let's let it launch itself on command and propel itself toward its target by manipulating gravitational fields. This has the added benefit of making the projectile inertialess, so it can turn in any direction and move at great speeds without having to move in a straight line.

Of course, a projectile that drives itself needs a guidance system. Does it designate its own target, or does someone tell it what to hit? Let's say a soldier designates targets with some sort of sighting device, and these projectiles launch themselves at the targets he designates. And once he designates a target, they lock on, so if it moves they will still hit it.

So you have a fire-and-forget weapon with very close to a 100% probability to hit, and even closer to a 100% probability of killing whatever it hits.

Of course, no weapon is perfect, and all weapons have side effects. In this case, the most obvious way to evade this weapon is not to be targeted--I'll let your imagination run wild with solutions to that problem. As to side effects, I'm sure antimatter could have a host of them. You have to contain it, for one, and if it breaches your containment mechanism your guidance and propulsion systems are toast--as is anything nearby. If the containment mechanism fails to release at impact, you're left with only a kinetic-energy projectile--and I'm not sure how much kinetic energy an inertialess projectile would have. That's for smarter people to figure out.

That's just a sample of the process I would go through to develop your advanced weaponry. Don't forget it is designed by humans or human-like entities, and as such will always have exploitable weaknesses. And don't forget if your weapons have weaknesses, the enemy will find them. It's amazing what people are capable of when their lives are on the line.

I hope this helps.
HN

ETA: Don't forget the lowly knife. I suspect it will be as useful a thousand years from now as it is today and was a thousand years ago. There is an unwritten rule in the U.S. Army (and in others, I imagine) that an infantryman should carry at least three knives.

Histry Nerd said:

If the containment mechanism fails to release at impact, you're left with only a kinetic-energy projectile--and I'm not sure how much kinetic energy an inertialess projectile would have. That's for smarter people to figure out.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm any smarter than you (or anyone else) but it occurs to me that if your projectile fails to function, it might just also lose its inertialess properties. Then, depending on its mass, it could be a fairly destructive kinetic weapon. On the other hand, if it was next to the target when it regained inertial properties, it may not have enough velocity to be a true ballistic weapon, and not have more deliterious effect on the target than a bumper car.

That's just a sample of the process I would go through to develop your advanced weaponry. Don't forget it is designed by humans or human-like entities, and as such will always have exploitable weaknesses. And don't forget if your weapons have weaknesses, the enemy will find them. It's amazing what people are capable of when their lives are on the line.

Click to expand...

HN: Your approach to the problem is refreshing, and one we should all use when developing our "worlds". Thanks.

... Don't forget the lowly knife. I suspect it will be as useful a thousand years from now as it is today and was a thousand years ago. There is an unwritten rule in the U.S. Army (and in others, I imagine) that an infantryman should carry at least three knives.

Click to expand...

Knives, sure. And any good soldier will have the smarts to pick up anything McGyver-style to use against an opponent.

Try approaching the weapons question from what can't be done. Use lack of resources to limit weapons. Remember there is usually a trade-off between quality and quantity. Use economics to constrain weapon technology.

TSByrne said:

1. The Why: You are all correct in assuming that resources are not the issue. One of the two warring factions involved in the combat is a highly advanced alien race which is systematically establishing a totalitarian government over all the other starfaring races (for reasons which are rather complex). The other side is the comparatively small underground which is trying to stop them.

Click to expand...

Why would anyone with infinite technology bother enforcing a totalitarian government? Just asking. If you have a matter replicator and can create all the food and stuff you need and a fusion energy source that will last a lifetime and a personal robot that can take care of all your needs, why bother with all the trouble of tyranny?

Human Slaves? Why not have robots do the work?
Soylent green? Matter replicator makes you food.

TSByrne said:

2. Mutually Assured Destruction: The more I think about the weapons and technology used, the more it becomes obvious that any actual pitched battles, even between a tiny handful of soldiers, would be insanely devastating. The two factions, as Histry Nerd supposes, do indeed usually fight each other by proxy through less developed peoples. Still, the occasional battle does break out, with disastrous consequences..

Click to expand...

Except that proxies can get suitcase nukes, bioweapons, and whatever, just as easily as the main armies.

TSByrne said:

3. Quality versus Quantity: Soldiers in my world are augmented to such a degree that only very, very small numbers of them are needed. Earth in 2150 was conquered using only 60 alien supersoldiers. Infantry are capable of antigrav flight and operating in a vacuum, and thus render fighter craft obsolete. As far as starships go, only 2-4 are needed to pacify an entire stellar system. This is an age of hyper-efficiency. To be honest, the more logically I think about it, the more it leans in the direction of superhero battles rather than traditional mass combat.

Click to expand...

60 aliens conquer 10 billion? yeah, that's superhero stuff. The nuclear weapons fired at them would be in the thousands.

TSByrne said:

4. Defenses: Ballistics are pretty much out of the question because everybody uses "kinetrophic nano-armor," which is basically a coating of nanites that eat the energy of the bullet (shell, meteor, whatever) and use it to power the wearers own energy weapons. The excess is shunted into the surrounding environment (likely causing enormous collatoral damage, which could be an end unto itself, but it doesn't hurt the target). Thus a direct energy weapon with enough output to overwhelm the armor is needed, which would thus require shields ... and so on..

Click to expand...

With unlimited technology, you could have handheld coilguns or railguns that could accellerate a small projectile to near speed of light velocities. The amount of kinetic energy would be massivive and would overwhelm any chemical bonds that would be holding together the molecules that your nanites are built out of. i.e. it would be too hot to handle.

The only problem with lasers right now is the power source sucks and the laser cannon is fairly big (size of a tank). If you have some high density power source, lasers become legitimate weapons. still pretty paltry compared to a railgun though.

unlimited technology would probably be fighting by robot proxy. nanites are one way. But human-sized or car sized or tank sized robots would also be the norm.

It is relatively easy to build a nuclear bomb. Humans did it with 1940's technology. why aren't the humans using nukes against the totalitarians?

Nukes being held by nation states have sort of developed a static peace because of MAD. Since youre a country, we know where you are, and if you nuke us, we'll have something left over that will nuke you. But if you're going to roll in on us with your supertechnology and enslave us in your totalitarian government, MAD no longer applies.

People with nothing left to lose will not be stopped by MAD logic, because you're going to enslave them anyway. so handheld nuclear weapons wouldn't be too outrageous.

greglondon said:

Why would anyone with infinite technology bother enforcing a totalitarian government? . . . why bother with all the trouble of tyranny?

Click to expand...

1) Border security. Like why Rome kept expanding. You're not doing it to gain resources, you're doing it to stop being attacked by the damn savages on the other side of the river.

2) Nature red in tooth and claw. We're programed for power hierarchies. Presumably aliens could be as well. Sure, you can lord it over robots, but it's so much more fun with real people.

3) Just because. They're aliens. They don't need a reason. Or it's an alien reason, which our puny human brains can't comprehend. Like a Sudoku puzzle in four dimensions. Or maybe they're just mean. They just don't like other races, with all their dry skin and the repulsive way they have a seperate anus, or that eye-wateringly-disgusting lateral symmetry thing they've got going on.

4) Religion. They're going to nuke us to save our souls. Only people who glow in the dark can get into bug-eyed monster Heaven.

Human history shows that as technology advances, the tolerance for oppresive government drops. Agrarian technology, some BC to 1800 AD, had something like 2/3'rds of its societies used slavery, in part, because labor was needed for plowing fields. The industrial revolution happens to line up exactly with the start of the idea of human rights and the start of the end of slavery. The information age made it a global conversation. If we manage to survive another thousand years to get through all the weeding out phases, I think the idea of a totalitarian government will make about as much sense to us as someone saying we must sacrifice a human to the raingods.

Romans conquered a number of people who wanted to be part of the roman empire because it was an improvement to their current state. The ones who didn't like it were equal in civilization and technology, like Greece, and lost some benefits being part of the empire.

To have some advanced alien race that can conquer earth with 60 soldiers, that's some pretty amazing tech going on. And there isn't any need for a totalitarian government. the individuals don't need it. They get nothing from i that they couldn't get from a matter replicator and a personal robot. It wouldn't sit well for very long.

I dunno. It's just one of my pet peeves. impersonal aliens with technology so advanced tht it looks like magic, who come to earth and impose some totalitarian rule over humans, for no obvious reason. If that's the scenario, best to glance over it as quickly as possible.

Interesting stuff going on here. I don't know if I can add much more, but here's my opinion on the story so far.

While I understand your story of 60 supersoldiers (who may as well be superheroes) conquering Earth, I myself prefer stories where it's more of an even match between forces. Not that I have anything against your story, just that it's a little more interesting to read about how one force is slowly overpowering another (such as the Eastern Front during World War 2, which was where the most brutal, bloody, and heaviest fighting occurred, probably ever in human history, which has never seen that much violence on such a large scale before).

So, rather than just 60 supersoldiers, how about 60 divisions of them? And don't make them too "invincible", or readers may begin asking "if they're so tough, what's the point of even fighting against them?" Make them a little more vulnerable, give them some inherent weaknesses, so that a few more of them can be killed, but despite that, Earth will still get conquered. Reading about how quickly Earth gets conquered by such a small force wouldn't hold my interests for long.

I do like your "conquering them for the sake of protecting them" mentality though. It certainly sounds like stuff that's happened throughout human history, and while Earthlings will no doubt see them as tyrannical rulers (after all, they just conquered the whole planet), the aliens themselves see what they're doing as justifiable actions, which they believe will actually save us in the long run (although they put down rebellions pretty brutally as well, which would no doubt cause people to rebel even more, and continue a vicious cycle).

I myself have been avoiding writing stuff like that in my own story. I've never been a big fan of "overpowering characters", who are so powerful to the point where they have no flaws or weaknesses and are unstoppable other than a plot device. While it would probably be great in real life, in a story that makes for boring reading after a while (Supersoldier A saw another rebellion, and swiftly put it down. He then quelled another region afterwards, etc. As opposed to something like "Captain Johnson began to see the hopelessness of fighting against such superior forces as he watched one of the aliens wipe out half of his company in a single attack. He thought they could be beaten, after Earth's initial successes, but the invaders were proving to be much more difficult than people originally thought.")

My take on the "perfect deadly weapon" is actually kind of low tech, ideology and morals. Do your supersoldiers have the ability to think for themselves, or are they essentially like the Borg on Star Trek, where they all think as one and perform all orders without question? Why not have some who see that what they're doing to inhabitants of Earth (and other planets) is actually a bad thing, and have them wonder if it's the right thing to do after all? Although it's kind of cliche, it'd be interesting to see what would happen if half of those supersoldiers defected and decided to fight against the other half who's still loyal to the Custodians. It would be interesting to see what the aliens believe in as far as religion. Is it anything like what humans have on Earth? Or do they believe that by killing off non-believers, they are doing their gods a favor/will? It's one thing to have a supersoldier fighting against what seems like impossible odds, and still winning. But it gets more interesting if said soldier suddenly found himself using his superior abilities to protect those who seem to be getting oppressed.

Otherwise, you may as well replace those supersoldiers with Terminator-style robots, which if you even sever one of its limbs, it'll still continue on its mission to kill you (or whatever it was tasked to do).

Again, I have nothing against having super-duper weapons. It's just that you shouldn't focus on them being overpowering solely for the "coolness factor". I have "super weapons" in my story as well, but I have been trying to justify their existence in my story (such as the bad guys firebombing the surface of a planet because the defense put up by the good guys earlier were a lot more stubborn than they thought. So the bad guys respond by doing a "scorched-earth" policy, where if they can't have it, neither can the good guys).

Another example I'll give you is from a video game (laugh all you want, this is pretty interesting though). In Metal Gear Solid, one of the main villians hijacks a giant, mechanical robot which is capable of launching nukes and being a formidable conventional weapon. It's also got such a strong defense mechanism that most normal attacks against it are useless (well anything short of a nuke).

However, one of the scientists, who also becomes your ally in the game, says he deliberately left a "character flaw" on the machine. What he means is that the sensors on the robot can be knocked out with repeated hits from rockets. Attacking this particular piece on the robot will force the bad guy to open the hatch to see where you are, thus also exposing himself so that you can damage him directly.

So you can see how although this giant mech is virtually impossible to kill from direct attacks, it has some weaknesses (admittedly, the designer put that in on purpose, because he believes that it would make the mech seem like less of a machine, and yes, it's just a game, so the boss has to be "mortal"), and because of that, although the mech is still quite a monster, it's not entirely invulnerable, and to me, that made the machine (and the boss fight itself) more interesting. The fight would get pretty boring if you had to rely on some outside source to kill it (such as an airstrike).

These are my thoughts. Take them for what you will. And best of luck on your story It does sound interesting, and is probably something I'd read, so I hope you throw in some big battles hehe. And yeah, this topic is giving me stuff to think about for my story.

Sokal said:

You might want to look into the classic Iain Banks (Excession, Use of Weapons, the Player of Games, Against a Dark Background) where essentially deception is the ultimate weapon because there are plenty of easy ways to completely annihilate anything. This actually makes for better plots since every plot is about layers of deception, but there are still some very poetic moments of wonderful violence.

I say classic Iain Banks, because lately he seems to be writing in a more stripped down style. I prefer the Baroque excess of Excession, for example.

Click to expand...

The Lazy Gun is the coolest weapon ever.

I would think that if the weapons are reversed engineered from stolen alien technology, you ought to have a plot point where these guys don't realize that they've built it wrong.

Maybe the weapon includes a beacon that draws the aliens to their "lost" weaponry. Maybe it doesn't work as expected.

The fact that it's reverse engineered gives you all sorts of possibilities.

Chaos String weaponry.

Earth in 2150 was conquered using only 60 alien supersoldiers.

Click to expand...

Absolutely absurd. Sorry, but a detail like that would break the story for me.

TSByrne said:

And what's Chaos String weaponry?

Click to expand...

Bolognium