# How far are we off...



## Mariner (Mar 13, 2013)

Laser guns (large, clunky ones about the size of a heavy machine gun) and mass cryogenic suspension.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Mar 13, 2013)

Not far enough...


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 13, 2013)

Mariner said:


> Laser guns (large, clunky ones about the size of a heavy machine gun) and mass cryogenic suspension.



All of those cryogenically frozen people will never live again, it's a con.  What these people are too stupid to realize, is that the water inside their bodies fragment their cells, similar to what happens when you freeze food.  You ever wonder why frozen food doesn't quite taste the same?  Well guess what's happened to their brains, it's mush.

On laser guns.  I don't know if you've noticed, but our technological advancements are slowing.  Practical laser guns probably aren't close at hand, plus it wouldn't be our greatest threat even if it occurred.


----------



## archer88iv (Mar 13, 2013)

Technological advancements are more changing than slowing, to my mind; we always have the assumption that the next big thing will in some way resemble the last big thing, and that's a terrible fallacy. That's why inventors have a tendency toward uncommon genius: they aren't bound by that kind of misconception.

As for practical laser weapons, the DOD seems to be pretty close if what you're looking for is a defensive system for swatting incoming missiles and artillery shells--but that's not an antipersonnel weapon and I kind of doubt it would be useful against humans, since they tend not to follow ballistic trajectories and often like to duck when shot at (probably before bursting into flame or melting).

When I start thinking about a laser rifle of some kind, I usually get distracted thinking of just how exactly it would work. Since it's basically only going to do damage by means of thermal radiation, you gotta figure that it needs to pump out enough juice to burn through clothing and armor before it'll ever manage to do anything to the person underneath. Further, it has to be said that we have gotten pretty good at making materials that both resist heat and do not conduct it (...shuttle tiles, rite? Rite...), so it's not unreasonable to expect that countermeasures could be developed in short order... Basically, it would be far more effective to expend all that energy propelling a bullet instead.

...I'm going to stop thinking about this crap and get back to work now.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 13, 2013)

Directed energy weapons;

directed energy weapons navy test - YouTube

E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century | Space.com

And Rail guns;

Navy gets another hypersonic railgun, fires test shots | SmartPlanet

Aren't so far away.


----------



## Nickleby (Mar 13, 2013)

archer88iv said:


> Technological advancements are more changing than slowing, to my mind; we always have the assumption that the next big thing will in some way resemble the last big thing, and that's a terrible fallacy. That's why inventors have a tendency toward uncommon genius: they aren't bound by that kind of misconception.



Going by this hint and Terry D's links, it looks like the next wave of military technology is based on denying the enemy the use of his own weapons. That includes cybercombat. If you can shut down the enemy's communications system, it doesn't much matter how good their weapons are.

As for cryogenics, I have a feeling that we'll find cures for the incurable diseases before we find a dependable freezing mechanism, so the question is moot. I'd guess gene therapy will be feasible by 2150 if not sooner.


----------



## WechtleinUns (Mar 13, 2013)

Cryogenic suspension is no longer needed. It seems the human body goes into a suspended state of animation when carbon dioxide/oxygen ratios reach a certain point. In fact, all mammals do, apparently.


----------



## Rickswan (Mar 18, 2013)

The Navy is presently researching battleship-mounted railguns, but for a portable, infantry-based energy weapon or coil-gun we are pretty far away. This is because, unless you have something the size of a Humvee or Tank, the storage of energy is a big problem. I have done some research into this. Here's a link, and here's another. What we would need is some sort of nano-scale supercapacitor bank or safe electrochemical fuel cells that can keep a huge charge without exploding. 

As far as present-day technology is concerned, arms manufacturers are finding ways to reduce recoil (AN-94, Vector) DARPA is currently researching ways to reduce the weight of firearms and ammunition with the LSAT system. You may also want to look into electronic superposed load systems and caseless ammunition, and active denial systems. Also, more drones and robots are likely in the near future, unfortunately. 

As for Cryogenic freezing, the correct term appears to be Cryonics. Wikipedia suggests that preservation and revival of humans could be achieved with techniques such as: bioengineering, molecular nanotechnology, nanomedicine, and tissue regeneration.


----------



## Robert_S (Mar 30, 2013)

People have spoken about cryogenics, but I'll add something to the laser argument. The power source needs to be as portable as the weapon. A laser weapon requires lots of energy, more than that used by CD/DVD readers and writers. So, I'll say we're far off because on top of the laser parts needing to be portable, the power source also needs to be portable.


----------



## moderan (Mar 30, 2013)

WechtleinUns said:


> Cryogenic suspension is no longer needed. It seems the human body goes into a suspended state of animation when carbon dioxide/oxygen ratios reach a certain point. In fact, all mammals do, apparently.


It has to be exactly the right ratio. Any lower, and you die. Brain damage begins at a ratio of saturation around 88%. I know this to be a fact, firsthand. And it's yet to be demonstrated in humans or any species that doesn't actually hibernate.
Lowering body temperature can have the same effect. Either area of thinking can be easily googled.


----------

