# Melee in Science Fiction



## Ninja Cheeseburger (Jan 7, 2012)

Hi there, I searched but came up empty so. . . 

I've been looking through trying to come up with a believable reason for having melee combat between Militaries in a sci-fi setting. 

It seems to me that 'cultural reasons' and 'only people with no sense of style use guns' doesn't work because as soon they encounter a culture or deviant group that doesn't have a problem with projectile weapons this goes out the window. 

And using a melee weapon in combination with a teleportation/cloaking device doesn't make sense because of silenced pistols.

And using a melee weapon because you don't want to vent your spaceship doesn't work either because Law Enforcement have a invented a round that will go through human flesh but not through sheetrock. 

So with that in mind what are your thoughts?


----------



## j.w.olson (Jan 8, 2012)

Really really heavy gravity that makes projectiles ineffective? Some equally high-tech counter to bullet-type things? Armor which can only be pierced by light-sabers (and you can't shoot lightsabers -- no lasers, etc)? Religious decree that everyone adheres to? Personal preference for an elite few who treat it like a holy sacrifice on their part (and also because no one knows how to defend against it anymore)?  For some reason, even with advanced tech, no one can see more than 5 feet in front of them in the atmosphere? The atmosphere behaves like non-newtonian fluid, where super fast things encounter extreme resistance, but things less fast are allowed to pass through? Because it's awesome (there is no explanation).


Welcome to the site, by the way! Feel free to introduce yourself in the introductions/new members forum thingawhatever place.


----------



## archer88iv (Jan 8, 2012)

Dune used that second idea, if I recall. The knife fighting was justified by the use of personal shield generators.

===

Oh, and I would add that melee weapons have their place even in modern combat. The US military still deploys bayonets, and the most recent bayonet charge was in 2004, by the British Army. Firearms are, quite frankly, difficult to employ at close quarters. Training manuals I've seen on the subject suggest that, at a distance of anything less than 15 feet (or was it yards? ...I don't remember), a firearm is as dangerous to you as it is to your adversary, particularly if he doesn't also have one.

So, suffice it to say that melee weapons will probably have their place in any serious arsenal at least until they become significantly more ineffective than they are now. And I don't suppose human skin is getting any thicker, now that I mention it.


----------



## C.M. Aaron (Jan 8, 2012)

Because both sides have exhausted their ammunition and melee weapons are the only things left. Because they live on a world where projectile weapons have been outlawed. I hear Japan is like that today - very few guns equals more stabbings.


----------



## WolfieReveles (Feb 17, 2012)

I'd go for the shield/armor version, simply because it's the easiest way to make sense of things. The protection is practically indestructible, the weapons that can pierce through it need a power source that doesn't fit in a bullet. This leaves melee, and perhaps spears for ranged.
Still though, mortars and rockets should be able to use the same tech, so basically you could have a one-shot rocket launcher, strategically like a really bulky flintlock pistol, and the rest is melee.


----------



## Potty (Feb 18, 2012)

A faction prefer close combat knowing the oposing army are reliant on their guns so they are weak in close combat. So they use stealth and deception to get up close and kick bottom the old fashioned way not giving the foe a chance to pull out their guns. 

They are in a building where a shot from a gun would break the glass that protects them from the vaccum of space. 

An EMP knocked out the sophisticated technology required for the guns to work so they have no choice but to resort to close combat. 

The army were caught off guard and don;t have time to get their guns.

The atmosphere is filled with a gas that would ignite from a muzzle flash


----------



## Archetype (Feb 22, 2012)

I like the EMP idea. Perhaps the invention of small EMP grenades could render electronic weapons obsolete? Then melee weapons would again be useful. At least until someone remembers gunpowder.


----------



## Potty (Feb 22, 2012)

Archetype said:


> At least until someone remembers gunpowder.



Not as effective in space. Yes you can fire a gun in a vaccum but it will only be as powerful as the oxides in the gun powder, with no oxygen around the casing to fuel the chemical reaction furthur the projectile probably wouldnt get through modern armor. 

Then if its on a planet, it probably wouldnt get through modern armor. Gun power would probably be useless, a bit like the SAS taking a bow and arrow into combat. It might be modern technology to us, but in 100 years time they will probably wonder how we managed with it for so long.


----------



## archer88iv (Feb 23, 2012)

Potty: there is no outside oxygen involved in firing a gun. All of the gas involved in the chemical reaction is pushing *out* of the gun, allowing nothing at all back inside. In short, modermn firearms will work just fine in a vacuum and even underwater (except that the increased resistance of water could potentially damage the barrel and/or prevent the weapon cycling appropriately).


----------



## theorphan (Feb 25, 2012)

Outlawing of firearms?  Scarcity of jacketing for bullets?  Cost of bullets?  I am sure you thought of this one but stealth assault?


----------



## Binary Mike (Feb 26, 2012)

Ninja Cheeseburger said:


> And using a melee weapon in combination with a teleportation/cloaking device doesn't make sense because of silenced pistols.



Actually, it does, because in reality silencers don't "silence" guns, they just make them slightly less ear-destroyingly loud. Silenced guns are still extremely loud, just not as loud as unsilenced ones. The purpose of this is to hide the source of the shot or keep people from hearing the gun from a long way away. So you could get away with this if you just put in a little explaination.

You could also argue that reaching for a knife in your belt and then slashing as you draw is quicker than having to reach for a gun, remove the saftey, cock (if needed), aim, and fire. Admittedly, this only saves split seconds - but in battle split seconds are vital. Plus any balistic weapon has to have ammunition; whereas melee weapons don't have that problem. Firearms can also jam and malfuntion in the heat of combat, whereas if a melee weapon breaks will be apparent that it is no longer useful much sooner. There are also currently certain kevlar weaves that will protect you from small callibur balistics but not knives, and other weaves that do the exact opposite, but it's one or the other depending on the weave you choose. And what about if the projectiles in your world trip off detectors?


----------



## mr_smartiepants (Apr 11, 2012)

Personally I agree with the "only people with no sense of style use guns," I've actually used this argument before with my friends in favor of using melee weapons as opposed to fire arms, of course in nonsensical conversations. 

You could always make it so that the story takes place in a world where guns were never invented, although that could be a stretch for a sci-fi story. The Walking Dead utilized such a principle with zombies. That story took place in a world where zombies were never a work of fiction, so when they appeared everyone was all like "WTF" as opposed to "Shoot them in the head and don't let them bite you!"

Another medium you could use is that certain nations/tribes/factions have different forms of technology so while one area may favor firearms another may see them as pointless and opt for advanced hand to hand combat with technology that protects them from projectiles.


----------

