Military Weapons

[-Daniel-]

I was having a conversation with a friend and he brought up the Law Table and posed a question. I was unsure the answer so I thought I would post it here to see all of your take on it.

Why are all Laser weapons considered worse that projectile weapons. They are banned down at Law Level 2 for example. Now Energy Weapons like Plasma Rifles make sense. The massive destructive power they hold. But a normal Laser Carbine? Why is it worse than an ACR for example?

I could not come up with an answer other than the idea a laser is harder to track for crime forensics. Is it really just that?

Thoughts, opinions, or input?

 

[rust2]

One possible reason could be that laser weapons tend to cause fires whenever they hit flammable material, and a fire on board of a starship or in a closed habitat can result in a rather unpleasant experience for all involved. :shock:

 

[kevinknight]

Your idea is good but my guess would be that it's a hold over from 40 years ago when any energy weapon would be considered high end military grade weaponry

 

[Infojunky]

If you look back at CT, in the 1st book the lasers where the hardest hitting weapon in there, as laser rifle being the equivalent to a man portable .50 rifle.

 

[phavoc]

I think Infojunky's answer sounds the best. In the original LBB, the Laser Rifle was THE weapon. Then along came Mercenary and you had RAM GL launchers, gauss weapons, ACR's, etc. I don't think they have ever gone back to change it in any of the editions.

 

[-Daniel-]

One possible reason could be that laser weapons tend to cause fires whenever they hit flammable material, and a fire on board of a starship or in a closed habitat can result in a rather unpleasant experience for all involved. :shock:

Good one. Increased danger in ships. But why does that make it more of an issue for planet side law? Most planets would not have the same issues as ships. But either way, good thought.

Your idea is good but my guess would be that it's a hold over from 40 years ago when any energy weapon would be considered high end military grade weaponry

Ok, that would make sense. Things have changed over time for us, so we now see it differently than the original designers.

If you look back at CT, in the 1st book the lasers where the hardest hitting weapon in there, as laser rifle being the equivalent to a man portable .50 rifle.

SO back in the day (CT) it might have made more sense. I can see that. But in this edition the power levels between lasers and slug throwers is not as great. So it feels more artificial in execution. But if you combine your point with Kevin's thought about hold overs then the logic is there even if it is slightly out dated.

Interesting input guys. :mrgreen:

 

[alex_greene]

Why are all Laser weapons considered worse than projectile weapons.

Even at a low setting, a laser weapon can blind a guy by burning out their retinas.

X-ray lasers could do worse - just expose the targets to radiation damage.

I know that a laser could blow your target's head clean off just as efficiently as an ACR round, but burning out retinas or shooting people with instant brain cancer is not exactly a clean way of waging war. So that's why lasers are worse than military slug throwers.

 

[phavoc]

Lasers also will have a much farther effective range - in reality at least - than ballistic weaponry. An X-ray laser can't be seen either, though it can be detected.

 

[-Daniel-]

So all of these reasons work for their being outlawed at a law level 2. Works for me. :mrgreen:

 

[Condottiere]

You don't even screw around with laser pointers; except with cats.

As I recall, lasers have no recoil, though schlepping along a battery backpack can't be fun.

Also, would accept that being painted by one is a viable self defence plea.

Also don't think that Mongoose lasers are ex rays, except when bomb pumped.

Civilians don't need lasers for self defense, and cutting variants are likely licensed.

 

[alex_greene]

Basically, any weapons that have effects on targets other than just killing them are banned. Specifically, weapons capable of inflicting permanent injuries (such as weapons designed to damage nerves or inflict non-lethal but permanent diseases and conditions) are on the banned list.

Weapons that deafen or blind people, or would make them crazy; weapons that would make them sterile; devices which, if released, would inflict diseases or cancers, thus inflicting suffering on still-living people rather than a quick, "merciful" death; all of these are violations of the Geneva Convention.

The act of calling a device a "non-lethal" weapon was an attempt to circumvent Geneva: all "non-lethal" weapons have the potential to be lethal, just that they apply lethality through means other than kinetic energy.

Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions holds, “Parties to a conflict and members of their armed forces do not have an unlimited choice of methods and means of warfare.”

International Committee of the Red Cross, Rule 70, prohibits “means and methods of warfare which … cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.” Serrated or poisoned bayonets, exploding bullets etc. are cruel and cause superfluous injury and suffering just for the sake of it.

Lasers can be set to blind: setting a laser pistol, carbine or rifle to blind is laughably easy, you just turn down the power a few notches below "burn people's faces off" to just "boil their retinas" instead. International human law here, such as ICRC Rule 86 and Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, is unequivocal: loss of vision is so cruel and inhumane (it is considered a worse fate than death) that blinding weapons are far beyond the pale and cannot be used in "just" warfare.

 

[phavoc]

Basically, any weapons that have effects on targets other than just killing them are banned. Specifically, weapons capable of inflicting permanent injuries (such as weapons designed to damage nerves or inflict non-lethal but permanent diseases and conditions) are on the banned list.

Weapons that deafen or blind people, or would make them crazy; weapons that would make them sterile; devices which, if released, would inflict diseases or cancers, thus inflicting suffering on still-living people rather than a quick, "merciful" death; all of these are violations of the Geneva Convention.

The act of calling a device a "non-lethal" weapon was an attempt to circumvent Geneva: all "non-lethal" weapons have the potential to be lethal, just that they apply lethality through means other than kinetic energy.

Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions holds, “Parties to a conflict and members of their armed forces do not have an unlimited choice of methods and means of warfare.”

International Committee of the Red Cross, Rule 70, prohibits “means and methods of warfare which … cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.” Serrated or poisoned bayonets, exploding bullets etc. are cruel and cause superfluous injury and suffering just for the sake of it.

Lasers can be set to blind: setting a laser pistol, carbine or rifle to blind is laughably easy, you just turn down the power a few notches below "burn people's faces off" to just "boil their retinas" instead. International human law here, such as ICRC Rule 86 and Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, is unequivocal: loss of vision is so cruel and inhumane (it is considered a worse fate than death) that blinding weapons are far beyond the pale and cannot be used in "just" warfare.

The older rules of war arguably need to be looked at in due to changes in technology. Shotguns are prohibited, but flamethrowers are not. Exploding bullets, but not air-burst artillery rounds. Sonic weapons can rupture ear drums, but incapitate rather than kill. I understand where they are trying to make warfare more "humane", but in an era where nations utilize nuclear weapons, where cities are firebombed, etc, etc.... the rules of war seem rather childish.

 

[alex_greene]

the rules of war seem rather childish.

I remember a villain in one of my campaigns once saying that before he dropped Ortillery on a couple of cities.

Better childish rules than no rules at all.

 

[phavoc]

the rules of war seem rather childish.

I remember a villain in one of my campaigns once saying that before he dropped Ortillery on a couple of cities.

Better childish rules than no rules at all.

The rules only work when the combatants are willing to play by them. And there is someone big enough to enforce them (and willing to do so). And for most bad guys (i.e. the villain in the story) don't follow the rules because, well, they are villains.

The reality is that most WMD's aren't used because of the MAD doctrine. Imperial and Zhodani and others don't go running around the Marches dropping ortillery on planets because their planets are just as vulnerable. In cases like Syria (or Iraq) where you see the government utilizing chlorine attacks, they do so surreptiously because they are aware that if they go too far over the line they will force other actors to act.

Cluster bombs are prohibited, but we still have them. Most weapons of that sort are prohibited to be USED, however we still build them and create delivery mechanisms to utilize them - just in case the other side uses them.

 

[Condottiere]

Ironically, limiting unnecessary suffering.

Though high tech medical solutions should resolve a number of these issues.

 

[JBRocky]

More reasons Lasers can be banned are:
1) They are more accurate since you don't have to lead a target or there is no bullet to be effected by gravity.
2) Longer range, if you can see it you can hit it.
3) Harder to detect

With some of these if you want to take out a target its far easier to do so with a Laser and not even be noticed until far to late.

 

[Condottiere]

In a way, we're walking into the Second Amendment issues as to what extend the citizenry is permitted to arm itself, and what purpose doing so serves.

If it's pure self defense against criminal acts, it would be to what extent a weapon acts as deterrence, and can overcome current defences available to civilians.

You can bet that well funded police departments will line their body armour with reflec.

Militarily, energy weapons ease logistics, but their opponents will have ways to defeat direct damage from lasers, so militaries shift back to kinetic weapons that they know can punch through ablat or reflec armour.

 

[alex_greene]

You can bet that well funded police departments will line their body armour with reflec.

And they'd look like a bunch of walking frozen dinner packs.

 

[-Daniel-]

In a way, we're walking into the Second Amendment issues as to what extend the citizenry is permitted to arm itself, and what purpose doing so serves.

Ok, I am unsure what the 2nd amendment has to do with a Traveller setting issue though. How does the second amendment have any bearing on how other planets and other governments do things? :?:

 

[Condottiere]

Collective self defense means that you need access to effective military grade weapons in order to help defend your community; if laser weapons fit in this category better than ye lead slug thrower, laser weaponry would have to be legal.