Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

tneva82 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Please point out where I claimed to see the future. I'm just hedging my bet's on what I think is likely to happen. Given the last 2000 years of lottery numbers, I'd hedge my bets and give you that.

You claim to know what will happen. That requires knowledge of future which is silly claim since everything is changing every second. You are not the you who was second before and humans in future aren't humans are now. I'll even let you in for a secret. One day there won't BE humans as they have changed into something else. Pile of ash or some other form of life is up for grasp but only thing is sure that it won't be humans of today.

Now who's pretending to know the future? That's a pretty ballsy claim.

If humans were non-changing you would be correct in assuming nukes will be replaced always with something better weapon and not with some other. Of course if there's something reality teaches us is though humans change. You wouldn't even BE here if things didn't change.

That's pure conjecture. Things could have stayed the same entirely and I could've still born.

Because everything changes everything(including life itself) is possible. This does mean there's potential that humans change into something better than they are now. Actually given enough time that would be automatic(roll 1,000,000 dice enough times and you get all 6's sooner or later). Question is just do we change out of existance before that happens. Doesn't change the fact potential is there though.

...right. I'ma step off the crazy evolving humans train before we get to the "We all evolved into beings of energy" part.

tneva82 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

It's not opinion, it's fact. Sure humans have declared some weapons to gruesome to be used (mustard gas, corpse throwing ala Constantinople), but we've just replaced them with better and bigger weapons.

So you claim to be able to see future. Care to share in PM next week's lottery numbers? Could do with couple millions.

You are trying to make the argument that everything in the future is as difficult to guess as a completely random lottery draw (which is designed with the express purpose of being difficult to guess). That argument is simply not genuine. We can predict a great many things about the future with astonishing accuracy. That is how we know when, and where, solar ellipses will occur, years before they happen. Unlike random lottery numbers, many things follow predictable patterns.

The idea that nuclear weapons will be superseded by even more devastating weapons, is more than simply a guess (based on a very predictable pattern which has been repeating forever). These weapons are already being theorised and researched. All it would take is one breakthrough in fields, such as nuclear fusion, antimatter energy, genetics, AI, etc... and these weapons would be a reality. Whether we have the good sense not to use them, remains to be seen, but (short of Armageddon) they will exist.

 Smacks wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

It's not opinion, it's fact. Sure humans have declared some weapons to gruesome to be used (mustard gas, corpse throwing ala Constantinople), but we've just replaced them with better and bigger weapons.

So you claim to be able to see future. Care to share in PM next week's lottery numbers? Could do with couple millions.

You are trying to make the argument that everything in the future is as difficult to guess as a completely random lottery draw (which is designed with the express purpose of being difficult to guess). That argument is simply not genuine. We can predict a great many things about the future with astonishing accuracy. That is how we know when, and where, solar ellipses will occur, years before they happen. Unlike random lottery numbers, many things follow predictable patterns.

The idea that nuclear weapons will be superseded by even more devastating weapons, is more than simply a guess (based on a very predictable pattern which has been repeating forever). These weapons are already being theorised and researched. All it would take is one breakthrough in fields, such as nuclear fusion, antimatter energy, genetics, AI, etc... and these weapons would be a reality. Whether we have the good sense not to use them, remains to be seen, but (short of Armageddon) they will exist.

I don't think that Nuclear weapons are likely to be surpassed. We already have nuclear fusion weapons, that is what thermonuclear weapons (hydrogen bombs) are. We could make them bigger I suppose but that doesn't change the physical process we are using, just how high a yield we are getting.

Antimatter? Way too expensive to create and store to ever be viable for weapons on a large scale. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to even create tens of milligrams of positrons, and it only gets more expensive as you try to create larger antiparticles. It would take a full gram of antimatter annihilating a gram of matter to produce 43 kilotons of explosive force, which is less force than we can get from fusion weapons we already have. That gram of antimatter would cost around $60trillion, plus the cost of containing it.

The majority of events in nature which produce vast energy output (such as supernovae, gamma ray bursts, relativistic jets etc.) require huge gravitational forces, such as those around black holes. We cannot recreate those conditions on earth.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
We already have nuclear fusion weapons, that is what thermonuclear weapons (hydrogen bombs) are. We could make them bigger I suppose but that doesn't change the physical process we are using, just how high a yield we are getting.

There is still lots that can be done with them. The holy grail of fusion weapons would be if we could make them without the fission part. That would allow us to make them smaller, and reduce the problem of radioactive fallout. While that sounds less devastating, it would make it much more likely that they would be used. Like moving from the cannon to the peacemaker. There are also theoretical ideas for focusing nuclear blasts into more of a beam, which could be directed. Nuclear blasts tend to waste a lot of their energy. If that energy could be more tightly focused, a smaller yield weapon could still be more destructive.

Antimatter? Way too expensive to create and store to ever be viable for weapons on a large scale.

It's way too expensive "at the moment", as the breakthrough I mentioned, obviously, hasn't happened yet (and indeed, it may never). But the fact that antimatter has already been synthesized, makes it more than just science fiction. The technology is already there it would appear, we would just need to make it considerably cheaper.

 Smacks wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
We already have nuclear fusion weapons, that is what thermonuclear weapons (hydrogen bombs) are. We could make them bigger I suppose but that doesn't change the physical process we are using, just how high a yield we are getting.

There is still lots that can be done with them. The holy grail of fusion weapons would be if we could make them without the fission part. That would allow us to make them smaller, and reduce the problem of radioactive fallout. While that sounds less devastating, it would make it much more likely that they would be used. Like moving from the cannon to the peacemaker. There are also theoretical ideas for focusing nuclear blasts into more of a beam, which could be directed. Nuclear blasts tend to waste a lot of their energy. If that energy could be more tightly focused, a smaller yield weapon could still be more destructive.

Antimatter? Way too expensive to create and store to ever be viable for weapons on a large scale.

It's way too expensive "at the moment", as the breakthrough I mentioned, obviously, hasn't happened yet (and indeed, it may never). But the fact that antimatter has already been synthesized, makes it more than just science fiction. The technology is already there it would appear, we would just need to make it considerably cheaper.

Exactly. Decades ago, computers used to be massive and cost tens of thousands of dollars. Now everyone has one in their pocket and they cost less than a decent night out.

Who says the next super weapon has to be some exotic energy? Just check some episodes of Babylon 5 and Yamato 2199 for a good visualization of mass drivers, the real future super weapons launched from the ultimate high ground of space.

I think the point is while nuclear weapons are the current top of weapon food chain, we already have theoretical understanding of weapons with far greater destructive potential. Its just a question of doing the hard science, engineering, etc. and funding it to get from the theoretical to the practical. That like nuclear weapons, whoever doesn't have them because they can't get them will seek some method similar to the UN GA's vote to ban nuclear weapons to reduce their vulnerability to them and/or achieve an increase in relative power through asymmetric means.

Also, throughout history, various powers took advantage of their technological edge to gain hegemony and similar attempts to set rules or restrictions on the use of particular lethal or horrific weapons during their zenith were attempted only to be made obsolete by the next great advancement in weapons (and military science).

Given such an enduring cycle and what our current vision is capable of, it seems not to be a stretch to predict with a high degree of certainty that at some point in the future, a weapon will come along that supplants nuclear weapons as the ultimate Trump* card.

(pun intended?) Sorry I couldn't resist given how various folks portray a Trump presidency in apocalyptic terms. Please accept this as my humble attempt at some political humor.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Now who's pretending to know the future? That's a pretty ballsy claim.

How's so? Life is change. Heard the term evolution before? You DO know the term right? It won't stop.

Before homo sapiens was homo sapiens there was whole bunch of other homo X. Before that they were another thing. Why you think the process has stopped now?

That's pure conjecture. Things could have stayed the same entirely and I could've still born.

Hahaha. No. If you think you aren't now because of change you came out of womb as you are now? For that matter you were just as you were before your parents even MET?

Life is change. Things change from one shape to another. Moleculs that make your body formed different thing before you were born. When you were born they changed into yet another shape that's body you now have.

Change, change, change. Everything changes from one thing to another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

It's not opinion, it's fact. Sure humans have declared some weapons to gruesome to be used (mustard gas, corpse throwing ala Constantinople), but we've just replaced them with better and bigger weapons.

So you claim to be able to see future. Care to share in PM next week's lottery numbers? Could do with couple millions.

You are trying to make the argument that everything in the future is as difficult to guess as a completely random lottery draw (which is designed with the express purpose of being difficult to guess). That argument is simply not genuine. We can predict a great many things about the future with astonishing accuracy. That is how we know when, and where, solar ellipses will occur, years before they happen. Unlike random lottery numbers, many things follow predictable patterns.

The idea that nuclear weapons will be superseded by even more devastating weapons, is more than simply a guess (based on a very predictable pattern which has been repeating forever). These weapons are already being theorised and researched. All it would take is one breakthrough in fields, such as nuclear fusion, antimatter energy, genetics, AI, etc... and these weapons would be a reality. Whether we have the good sense not to use them, remains to be seen, but (short of Armageddon) they will exist.

Yes that's the LIKELY scenario. However it is not the only scenario. Fact is: Everything changes. Humans change. And because humans change also our thinking changes. Maybe we can actually learn to live with each other making nuclear weapons useless as we don't want to use them anymore.

Unlikely maybe but not impossible. As long as humans exists they can change so there's chance. Even if it's minimal.

I'm not claiming it will happen. I don't know what will happen. All I know is the basic truth in the universum. That everything changes. And because everything changes everything is possible. This gives hope that weapons are eventually got rid of. I'm hoping that happens sooner or later because if not eventually what I would consider annoying change happens and humans self-destruct(might you that's not bad change per se. Change is neither good nor bad per se. Good or bad is relatative to who considers it. While I would consider human self destruction bad change for another party it would be good change) is pretty much quaranteed.

tneva82 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Now who's pretending to know the future? That's a pretty ballsy claim.

How's so? Life is change. Heard the term evolution before? You DO know the term right? It won't stop.

Yep. I also know a person who loves to talk down to others. As enlightening as this has been, I'm done.

I can see the future. I predict a nice glass of dark rum and water in it, after I get done walking the mountain dog. Oh and pizza.

Even if the UN vote succeeds. No major country will destroy all their Nuclear weapons they just park them next to the chemical and Biological weapons they promised to destroy in the previous treaties.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Look at the sword, the bow, the catapult. It's the latter option.

Sort of. There's certainly a long term pattern to more powerful weapons, but in the last 50 years there's also been a trend towards more exacting weapons. Saturation bombing has been replaced by precision bombing.

Nuclear weapons will eventually be outmoded by something or other, but we can't assume the new weapon will be more deadly. It's very likely the new weapon will be have nuclear's ability to destroy the enemy's capability to wage war without the mass destruction of a nuclear bomb.

I said it before, and I think it maybe got lost behind talk of antimatter, but actually, I think AI will be the big one. AI is going to revolutionise everything, and I'm sure weaponry won't be left out. I can barely begin to imagine what the full scope of intelligent weapons might be, but I have a feeling they'll make nuclear war look possessively wholesome.

I'm more worried about some sort of genetically engineered virus TBH. Anything thst AI can do in the future humans can do right now through remote control.

 Smacks wrote:
I said it before, and I think it maybe got lost behind talk of antimatter, but actually, I think AI will be the big one. AI is going to revolutionise everything, and I'm sure weaponry won't be left out. I can barely begin to imagine what the full scope of intelligent weapons might be, but I have a feeling they'll make nuclear war look possessively wholesome.

Maybe, but again its interesting you go to speculation on the most violent possible take on AI. But consider instead a future where AI driven provides most of our war machines, and AI driven factories provide most of our war production. You win a war in that situation by destroying the weapons of war and the industries that might replace them. Human casualties are irrelevant to that war.

 sebster wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Look at the sword, the bow, the catapult. It's the latter option.

Sort of. There's certainly a long term pattern to more powerful weapons, but in the last 50 years there's also been a trend towards more exacting weapons. Saturation bombing has been replaced by precision bombing.

Nuclear weapons will eventually be outmoded by something or other, but we can't assume the new weapon will be more deadly. It's very likely the new weapon will be have nuclear's ability to destroy the enemy's capability to wage war without the mass destruction of a nuclear bomb.

Not necessarily. Think about it, precision bombing is by nature deadlier than saturation bombing. You're hitting less buildings, trees, earth, etc. and more people. If we could have precision or small scale nuclear weapons, I think that would qualify as deadlier to the mass employment we could use them with.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm more worried about some sort of genetically engineered virus TBH. Anything thst AI can do in the future humans can do right now through remote control.

That's a bit like saying any calculation that computers can do now, humans could do a hundred years ago with log tables. While it's sort of true, computers can do the calculations with such speed, that the applications are mind blowing. You couldn't have a thriving interactive world like GTA running on humans with slide rules. Which why I'm saying that AI in the future will be able to do things that we find difficult to even imagine today.

As for genetically engineered viruses, I think technologies like genetics, computing, and AI will probably start to merge at some point in the next 100 years. We might not just be talking engineered viruses, but intelligent viruses that can respond and adapt.

 sebster wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I said it before, and I think it maybe got lost behind talk of antimatter, but actually, I think AI will be the big one. AI is going to revolutionise everything, and I'm sure weaponry won't be left out. I can barely begin to imagine what the full scope of intelligent weapons might be, but I have a feeling they'll make nuclear war look possessively wholesome.

Maybe, but again its interesting you go to speculation on the most violent possible take on AI. But consider instead a future where AI driven provides most of our war machines, and AI driven factories provide most of our war production. You win a war in that situation by destroying the weapons of war and the industries that might replace them. Human casualties are irrelevant to that war.

I think I said that AI would revolutionise everything. We were talking about WMDs, which are inherently violent, so I went on to speculate that they will be revolutionised too (at least theoretically, if not in practice), which is somewhat inevitable. I didn't mean to suggest that AI was itself inherently violent.

 Smacks wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm more worried about some sort of genetically engineered virus TBH. Anything thst AI can do in the future humans can do right now through remote control.

That's a bit like saying any calculation that computers can do now, humans could do a hundred years ago with log tables. While it's sort of true, computers can do the calculations with such speed, that the applications are mind blowing. You couldn't have a thriving interactive world like GTA running on humans with slide rules. Which why I'm saying that AI in the future will be able to do things that we find difficult to even imagine today.

As for genetically engineered viruses, I think technologies like genetics, computing, and AI will probably start to merge at some point in the next 100 years. We might not just be talking engineered viruses, but intelligent viruses that can respond and adapt.

AI is still limted by our mechanical prowess. If we build robot tanks or something, they are still tanks. Unless you are suggesting a technological singularity, which is bonkers even to worry about at our level of technology.

. AI is going to revolutionise everything

Skynet agrees.

 jreilly89 wrote:


It's not opinion, it's fact. Sure humans have declared some weapons to gruesome to be used (mustard gas, corpse throwing ala Constantinople), but we've just replaced them with better and bigger weapons.

You do know that mustard gas has been used pretty darned recently, right?

 CptJake wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


It's not opinion, it's fact. Sure humans have declared some weapons to gruesome to be used (mustard gas, corpse throwing ala Constantinople), but we've just replaced them with better and bigger weapons.

You do know that mustard gas has been used pretty darned recently, right?

Yes, but it's still a banned weapon, hence why I mentioned it.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Unless you are suggesting a technological singularity, which is bonkers even to worry about at our level of technology.

Yes, a technological singularity is exactly what I'm talking about. However, I'm not "worrying" about it, I'm discussing it in the context of how things might be different in the future. At the rate computers are advancing, that future might not be far away. Perhaps it won't quite be in our lifetimes, but it's gonna be pretty damn close. We're on a precipice right now. Once we reach the stage where computer intelligence surpasses our own, and those computers are therefore able to design even more intelligent computers... gak's gonna get real!

 jreilly89 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


It's not opinion, it's fact. Sure humans have declared some weapons to gruesome to be used (mustard gas, corpse throwing ala Constantinople), but we've just replaced them with better and bigger weapons.

You do know that mustard gas has been used pretty darned recently, right?

Yes, but it's still a banned weapon, hence why I mentioned it.

I submit it has not been fully replaced if it is still being used...

Which also goes to show the utility of banning something.

 CptJake wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


It's not opinion, it's fact. Sure humans have declared some weapons to gruesome to be used (mustard gas, corpse throwing ala Constantinople), but we've just replaced them with better and bigger weapons.

You do know that mustard gas has been used pretty darned recently, right?

Yes, but it's still a banned weapon, hence why I mentioned it.

I submit it has not been fully replaced if it is still being used...

People still ride horses in Texas, but I submit the car has replaced the horse-drawn wagon. People still kill people with rocks, but I submit the knife and gun are superior to the rock.

Which also goes to show the utility of banning something.

By that logic, people are still murdered despite it being legal. Goes to show the utility of laws

Nanotechnology weapons...there's the next evolution in the potential for horror, methinks.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


It's not opinion, it's fact. Sure humans have declared some weapons to gruesome to be used (mustard gas, corpse throwing ala Constantinople), but we've just replaced them with better and bigger weapons.

You do know that mustard gas has been used pretty darned recently, right?

Yes, but it's still a banned weapon, hence why I mentioned it.

I submit it has not been fully replaced if it is still being used...

People still ride horses in Texas, but I submit the car has replaced the horse-drawn wagon. People still kill people with rocks, but I submit the knife and gun are superior to the rock.

Which also goes to show the utility of banning something.

By that logic, people are still murdered despite it being legal. Goes to show the utility of laws

Differences even you should understand: You murder someone, the local cops have the authority and the means to arrest you and the local prosecutor has the means and authority to try you. The UN has no authority nor any means to do a fething thing.

As to your other point, there are times a horse is the Best Solution, see the ODAs that inserted into Northern Afghanistan as one example, and I personally used guys on horses to patrol certain areas near White Sands where vehicles just were not practical. And there are certain target sets for which some of the smaller nukes are the best solution from a targeteering perspective for a variety of reasons. May never be politically acceptable to prosecute those targets in that way, but having the capability is a damned good thing.

 CptJake wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


It's not opinion, it's fact. Sure humans have declared some weapons to gruesome to be used (mustard gas, corpse throwing ala Constantinople), but we've just replaced them with better and bigger weapons.

You do know that mustard gas has been used pretty darned recently, right?

Yes, but it's still a banned weapon, hence why I mentioned it.

I submit it has not been fully replaced if it is still being used...

People still ride horses in Texas, but I submit the car has replaced the horse-drawn wagon. People still kill people with rocks, but I submit the knife and gun are superior to the rock.

Which also goes to show the utility of banning something.

By that logic, people are still murdered despite it being legal. Goes to show the utility of laws

Differences even you should understand: You murder someone, the local cops have the authority and the means to arrest you and the local prosecutor has the means and authority to try you. The UN has no authority nor any means to do a fething thing.

Ah, now we're resorting to insinuating I'm an idiot?

As to your other point, there are times a horse is the Best Solution, see the ODAs that inserted into Northern Afghanistan as one example, and I personally used guys on horses to patrol certain areas near White Sands where vehicles just were not practical. And there are certain target sets for which some of the smaller nukes are the best solution from a targeteering perspective for a variety of reasons. May never be politically acceptable to prosecute those targets in that way, but having the capability is a damned good thing.

As fun as this has been, there are situations where it may be useful, but it's still been superceded for the most part. I'm out.