Technology

fallsfromtrees wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:Need to invent gyroscope and then figure some way to use it

Both the V1 and V2 used gyroscopic guidance; they still couldn't hit the broadside of a square barn. With the doors closed.

From the inside

If the barn is square, does it have a broadside?

TN4994 wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:Need to invent gyroscope and then figure some way to use it

Both the V1 and V2 used gyroscopic guidance; they still couldn't hit the broadside of a square barn. With the doors closed.

fallsfromtrees wrote:From the inside

If the barn is square, does it have a broadside?

Obviously. If it is square, then all the sides are broad.

Dilandu wrote:I repeat: the idea that there is some "terror weapons" and some "honest weapons" are absurd by itself.

For example: the biological weapons are generally considered as "terror weapons".

But what if, for example, the threat of biological attack would be used to hold someone like Hitler from agression? Would the bioweapon still be considered as "terror weapons", or a "deterrence weapon"?

You see, the difference not in the weapon. The difference is in the way of using it.

Oh, I so agree.
It's how a weapon is utilized.
V1 used against a military force is Tatical. But others are going to go V1, Terror Weapon. Because of its past use.

fallsfromtrees wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:Need to invent gyroscope and then figure some way to use it

Both the V1 and V2 used gyroscopic guidance; they still couldn't hit the broadside of a square barn. With the doors closed.

fallsfromtrees wrote:From the inside

If the barn is square, does it have a broadside?

Obviously. If it is square, then all the sides are broad.[/quote]
But I was taught that pies are square.

TN4994 wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:Need to invent gyroscope and then figure some way to use it

Both the V1 and V2 used gyroscopic guidance; they still couldn't hit the broadside of a square barn. With the doors closed.

fallsfromtrees wrote:From the inside

If the barn is square, does it have a broadside?

fallsfromtrees wrote:Obviously. If it is square, then all the sides are broad.

But I was taught that pies are square.[/quote]
Pie are not squared. Pie are round.

fallsfromtrees wrote:

TN4994 wrote:But I was taught that pies are square.

Pie are not squared. Pie are round.

You better smile when you post that, pilgrim.

TN4994 wrote:

Dilandu wrote:I repeat: the idea that there is some "terror weapons" and some "honest weapons" are absurd by itself.

For example: the biological weapons are generally considered as "terror weapons".

But what if, for example, the threat of biological attack would be used to hold someone like Hitler from agression? Would the bioweapon still be considered as "terror weapons", or a "deterrence weapon"?

You see, the difference not in the weapon. The difference is in the way of using it.

Oh, I so agree.
It's how a weapon is utilized.
V1 used against a military force is Tatical. But others are going to go V1, Terror Weapon. Because of its past use.

I get what you are both saying. For example, Angle Guns have so far been used as a tactical weapon of war by accurate bombardment on the battlefield. But they *COULD* be used as a terror weapon by conducting an unrestricted bombardment of a city. So while I view Angle Guns as a primarily tactical weapon, I do understand how under certain circumstances they could be utilized as terror weapons.

To me the distinction about the V1 and the V2 is that they can ONLY be used as terror weapons against cities. Quite simply, the V1 or V2 cannot be used tactically. They just are not accurate enough to be useful in this regard.

Henry Brown wrote:

Dilandu wrote:I repeat: the idea that there is some "terror weapons" and some "honest weapons" are absurd by itself.

For example: the biological weapons are generally considered as "terror weapons".

But what if, for example, the threat of biological attack would be used to hold someone like Hitler from agression? Would the bioweapon still be considered as "terror weapons", or a "deterrence weapon"?

You see, the difference not in the weapon. The difference is in the way of using it.

TN4994 wrote:Oh, I so agree.
It's how a weapon is utilized.
V1 used against a military force is Tatical. But others are going to go V1, Terror Weapon. Because of its past use.

I get what you are both saying. For example, Angle Guns have so far been used as a tactical weapon of war by accurate bombardment on the battlefield. But they *COULD* be used as a terror weapon by conducting an unrestricted bombardment of a city. So while I view Angle Guns as a primarily tactical weapon, I do understand how under certain circumstances they could be utilized as terror weapons.

To me the distinction about the V1 and the V2 is that they can ONLY be used as terror weapons against cities. Quite simply, the V1 or V2 cannot be used tactically. They just are not accurate enough to be useful in this regard.

I agree with this assessment. I would add that the use of a biologic weapon is virtually always going to be a terror weapon, as there is no way to control who is attacked, and if it affects the civilian population, it's a terror weapon. The same is true of multi-megaton nuclear weapons. These are really useful only for destroying cities, and as such, should be considered terror weapons, even though they are being used as deterrence.

I would like to point out that Cayleb and Sharleyan have already rejected the use of terror, for example Ferayd, and the rejection of the Book of Schueler, other than the immediate execution of any member of the inquisition captured, so I doubt that they would countenance any use of biological or indiscriminate weapons.

I would like to point out that Cayleb and Sharleyan have already rejected the use of terror, for example Ferayd, and the rejection of the Book of Schueler, other than the immediate execution of any member of the inquisition captured, so I doubt that they would countenance any use of biological or indiscriminate weapons.

Well, with the help of Merlin, they could afford it. But what if they haven't Merlin's help? Or the other side have their own equivalent? Would they still be so "nice and civilized", even if it means that they clearly would lose (with disastrous consequenses for their populations), or would they throw against Clyntahn everuthing they could obtain - gases, viruses, radiological bomb?

The fact is, that in real total wars, there is no Merlins or Mary-Sue or anything like that. There is two powers, struggling against each other with all they could manage.