4 Fixed typo
source | link

I’m amused at old sci-fi that has spaceships and maybe FTL but otherwise is exactly WWⅡ technology. They use slide rules, and any computers are huge room-filling machines that can barely compute an orbit when tended by a staff of experts. No microwave ovens, no composites, no plastic.

So, you postulate a galaxy-spanning civilization and can make war economically.

But everything else is exactly like the civilization and technology that the author is familiar with today?

Imagine if a medevialmedievial (pre-gunpowder) author tried to envision “world war” spanning contenents, complete with 20th20th century sized battleships and aircraft. What kinds of spears, axes, lances, bows, etc. would be suitable for an “intercontenental war”?

A firearm similar to what is made today is the same kind of thing. Remember the lessons of spinoff technology (microwave ovens, radar, microelectronics) that go along with your postulated technology of galaxy-wide travel, and updated materials (plastic, composits) that go with a more advanced technology base.

So firearms made of carefully fitted metal parts with fine tolerances, need for lubrication and cooling, and expensive/precious so not disposable: that’s so 19th century!

Just like we have plastic foam cups and carbon fiber tennis rackets, they will have nanobot utility goo, programmable matter, superatoms, etc. Instead of solid machined metal parts, they will have biology-analogue items made of nanobot “cells” that clean themselves just like living things, sweeping out small particles and repairing microscopic damage automatically.

Materials will have physical properties that make cooling a non-issue: superconductors of heat, and materials that not only take the heat build up but use that to reclaim energy as it slowly cools down again.

But will you even have firearms? Nanoprojectiles in an airless world can launch thelselves without “guns”. They won’t punch through the suit with raw kenetic energy; they will digest the material and eat through dumb matter, and hack enemy smart matter or otherwise disrupt it using techniques that go with its principles of operation—that is, poison the suit material or enemy equitment so it stops being able to clear particles and repair itself (and is then vulnerable to being digested/disassembled).

Why fire a projectile or projectile delivery system at all, when the very regolith they walk on could become a swarm of nanobots that engulfs anything that touches it?

You might not be blasting each other with high-energy lasers, but instead beaming more subtle Bluetooth-like signals to hack the opponent’s systems and nanobot building blocks. Tell his suit to remove itself, or that the sensor readings for life support are wildly wrong.

In fact, using a primitive dumb-matter projectile might be an unexpected tactic that takes them off guard.

But why send ground troops to fight on a body like the moon? Drop a rock on them or use a ship’s drive, and end of enemy installation. Weapons of mass destruction will be commonplace adaptations of spacefaring infrastructure.

I’m amused at old sci-fi that has spaceships and maybe FTL but otherwise is exactly WWⅡ technology. They use slide rules, and any computers are huge room-filling machines that can barely compute an orbit when tended by a staff of experts. No microwave ovens, no composites, no plastic.

So, you postulate a galaxy-spanning civilization and can make war economically.

But everything else is exactly like the civilization and technology that the author is familiar with today?

Imagine if a medevial (pre-gunpowder) author tried to envision “world war” spanning contenents, complete with 20th century sized battleships and aircraft. What kinds of spears, axes, lances, bows, etc. would be suitable for an “intercontenental war”?

A firearm similar to what is made today is the same kind of thing. Remember the lessons of spinoff technology (microwave ovens, radar, microelectronics) that go along with your postulated technology of galaxy-wide travel, and updated materials (plastic, composits) that go with a more advanced technology base.

So firearms made of carefully fitted metal parts with fine tolerances, need for lubrication and cooling, and expensive/precious so not disposable: that’s so 19th century!

Just like we have plastic foam cups and carbon fiber tennis rackets, they will have nanobot utility goo, programmable matter, superatoms, etc. Instead of solid machined metal parts, they will have biology-analogue items made of nanobot “cells” that clean themselves just like living things, sweeping out small particles and repairing microscopic damage automatically.

Materials will have physical properties that make cooling a non-issue: superconductors of heat, and materials that not only take the heat build up but use that to reclaim energy as it slowly cools down again.

But will you even have firearms? Nanoprojectiles in an airless world can launch thelselves without “guns”. They won’t punch through the suit with raw kenetic energy; they will digest the material and eat through dumb matter, and hack enemy smart matter or otherwise disrupt it using techniques that go with its principles of operation—that is, poison the suit material or enemy equitment so it stops being able to clear particles and repair itself (and is then vulnerable to being digested/disassembled).

Why fire a projectile or projectile delivery system at all, when the very regolith they walk on could become a swarm of nanobots that engulfs anything that touches it?

You might not be blasting each other with high-energy lasers, but instead beaming more subtle Bluetooth-like signals to hack the opponent’s systems and nanobot building blocks. Tell his suit to remove itself, or that the sensor readings for life support are wildly wrong.

In fact, using a primitive dumb-matter projectile might be an unexpected tactic that takes them off guard.

But why send ground troops to fight on a body like the moon? Drop a rock on them or use a ship’s drive, and end of enemy installation. Weapons of mass destruction will be commonplace adaptations of spacefaring infrastructure.

I’m amused at old sci-fi that has spaceships and maybe FTL but otherwise is exactly WWⅡ technology. They use slide rules, and any computers are huge room-filling machines that can barely compute an orbit when tended by a staff of experts. No microwave ovens, no composites, no plastic.

So, you postulate a galaxy-spanning civilization and can make war economically.

But everything else is exactly like the civilization and technology that the author is familiar with today?

Imagine if a medievial (pre-gunpowder) author tried to envision “world war” spanning contenents, complete with 20th century sized battleships and aircraft. What kinds of spears, axes, lances, bows, etc. would be suitable for an “intercontenental war”?

A firearm similar to what is made today is the same kind of thing. Remember the lessons of spinoff technology (microwave ovens, radar, microelectronics) that go along with your postulated technology of galaxy-wide travel, and updated materials (plastic, composits) that go with a more advanced technology base.

So firearms made of carefully fitted metal parts with fine tolerances, need for lubrication and cooling, and expensive/precious so not disposable: that’s so 19th century!

Just like we have plastic foam cups and carbon fiber tennis rackets, they will have nanobot utility goo, programmable matter, superatoms, etc. Instead of solid machined metal parts, they will have biology-analogue items made of nanobot “cells” that clean themselves just like living things, sweeping out small particles and repairing microscopic damage automatically.

Materials will have physical properties that make cooling a non-issue: superconductors of heat, and materials that not only take the heat build up but use that to reclaim energy as it slowly cools down again.

But will you even have firearms? Nanoprojectiles in an airless world can launch thelselves without “guns”. They won’t punch through the suit with raw kenetic energy; they will digest the material and eat through dumb matter, and hack enemy smart matter or otherwise disrupt it using techniques that go with its principles of operation—that is, poison the suit material or enemy equitment so it stops being able to clear particles and repair itself (and is then vulnerable to being digested/disassembled).

Why fire a projectile or projectile delivery system at all, when the very regolith they walk on could become a swarm of nanobots that engulfs anything that touches it?

You might not be blasting each other with high-energy lasers, but instead beaming more subtle Bluetooth-like signals to hack the opponent’s systems and nanobot building blocks. Tell his suit to remove itself, or that the sensor readings for life support are wildly wrong.

In fact, using a primitive dumb-matter projectile might be an unexpected tactic that takes them off guard.

But why send ground troops to fight on a body like the moon? Drop a rock on them or use a ship’s drive, and end of enemy installation. Weapons of mass destruction will be commonplace adaptations of spacefaring infrastructure.

3 added 1 character in body
source | link

I’m amused at old sci-fi that has spaceships and maybe FTL but otherwise is exactly WWⅡ technology. They use slide rules, and any computers are huge room-filling machines that can barely compute an orbit when tended by a staff of experts. No microwave ovens, no composites, no plastic.

So, you postulate a galaxy-spanning civilization and can make war economically.

But everything else is exactly like the civilization and technology that the author is familiar with today?

Imagine if a medevial (pre-gunpowder) author tried to envision “world war” spanning contenents, complete with 20th century sized battleships and aircraft. What kinds of spears, axes, lances, bows, etc. would be suitable for an “intercontenental war”?

A firearm similar to what is made today is the same kind of thing. Remember the lessons of spinoff technology (microwave ovens, radar, microelectronics) that go along with your postulated technology of galaxy-wide travel, and updated materials (plastic, composits) that go with a more advanced technology base.

So firearms made of carefully fitted metal parts with fine tolerances, need for lubrication and cooling, and expensive/precious so not disposable: that’s so 19th century!

Just like we have plastic foam cups and carbon fiber tennis rackets, they will have nanobot utility goo, programmable matter, superatoms, etc. Instead of solid machined metal parts, they will have biology-analogue items made of nanobot “cells” that clean themselves just like living things, sweeping out small particles and repairing microscopic damage automatically.

Materials will have physical properties that make cooling a non-issue: superconductors of heat, and materials that not only take the heat build up but use that to reclaim energy as it slowly cools down again.

But will you even have firearms? Nanoprojectiles in an airless world can launch thelselves without “guns”. They won’t punch through the suit with raw kenetic energy; they will digest the material and eat through dumb matter, and hack enemy smart matter or otherwise disrupt it using techniques that go with its principles of operation—that is, poison the suit material or enemy equitment so it stops being able to clear particles and repair itself (and is then vulnerable to being digested/disassembled).

Why fire a projectile or projectile delivery system at all, when the very regolith they walk on could become a swarm of nanobots that engulfs anything that touches it?

You might not be blasting each other with high-energy lasers, but instead beaming more subtle Bluetooth-like signals to hack the opponentsopponent’s systems and nanobot building blocks. Tell his suit to remove itself, or that the sensor readings for life support are wildly wrong.

In fact, using a primitive dumb-matter projectile might be an unexpected tactic that takes them off guard.

But why send ground troops to fight on a body like the moon? Drop a rock on them or use a ship’s drive, and end of enemy installation. Weapons of mass destruction will be commonplace adaptations of spacefaring infrastructure.

I’m amused at old sci-fi that has spaceships and maybe FTL but otherwise is exactly WWⅡ technology. They use slide rules, and any computers are huge room-filling machines that can barely compute an orbit when tended by a staff of experts. No microwave ovens, no composites, no plastic.

So, you postulate a galaxy-spanning civilization and can make war economically.

But everything else is exactly like the civilization and technology that the author is familiar with today?

Imagine if a medevial (pre-gunpowder) author tried to envision “world war” spanning contenents, complete with 20th century sized battleships and aircraft. What kinds of spears, axes, lances, bows, etc. would be suitable for an “intercontenental war”?

A firearm similar to what is made today is the same kind of thing. Remember the lessons of spinoff technology (microwave ovens, radar, microelectronics) that go along with your postulated technology of galaxy-wide travel, and updated materials (plastic, composits) that go with a more advanced technology base.

So firearms made of carefully fitted metal parts with fine tolerances, need for lubrication and cooling, and expensive/precious so not disposable: that’s so 19th century!

Just like we have plastic foam cups and carbon fiber tennis rackets, they will have nanobot utility goo, programmable matter, superatoms, etc. Instead of solid machined metal parts, they will have biology-analogue items made of nanobot “cells” that clean themselves just like living things, sweeping out small particles and repairing microscopic damage automatically.

Materials will have physical properties that make cooling a non-issue: superconductors of heat, and materials that not only take the heat build up but use that to reclaim energy as it slowly cools down again.

But will you even have firearms? Nanoprojectiles in an airless world can launch thelselves without “guns”. They won’t punch through the suit with raw kenetic energy; they will digest the material and eat through dumb matter, and hack enemy smart matter or otherwise disrupt it using techniques that go with its principles of operation—that is, poison the suit material or enemy equitment so it stops being able to clear particles and repair itself (and is then vulnerable to being digested/disassembled).

Why fire a projectile or projectile delivery system at all, when the very regolith they walk on could become a swarm of nanobots that engulfs anything that touches it?

You might not be blasting each other with high-energy lasers, but instead beaming more subtle Bluetooth-like signals to hack the opponents systems and nanobot building blocks. Tell his suit to remove itself, or that the sensor readings for life support are wildly wrong.

In fact, using a primitive dumb-matter projectile might be an unexpected tactic that takes them off guard.

But why send ground troops to fight on a body like the moon? Drop a rock on them or use a ship’s drive, and end of enemy installation. Weapons of mass destruction will be commonplace adaptations of spacefaring infrastructure.

I’m amused at old sci-fi that has spaceships and maybe FTL but otherwise is exactly WWⅡ technology. They use slide rules, and any computers are huge room-filling machines that can barely compute an orbit when tended by a staff of experts. No microwave ovens, no composites, no plastic.

So, you postulate a galaxy-spanning civilization and can make war economically.

But everything else is exactly like the civilization and technology that the author is familiar with today?

Imagine if a medevial (pre-gunpowder) author tried to envision “world war” spanning contenents, complete with 20th century sized battleships and aircraft. What kinds of spears, axes, lances, bows, etc. would be suitable for an “intercontenental war”?

A firearm similar to what is made today is the same kind of thing. Remember the lessons of spinoff technology (microwave ovens, radar, microelectronics) that go along with your postulated technology of galaxy-wide travel, and updated materials (plastic, composits) that go with a more advanced technology base.

So firearms made of carefully fitted metal parts with fine tolerances, need for lubrication and cooling, and expensive/precious so not disposable: that’s so 19th century!

Just like we have plastic foam cups and carbon fiber tennis rackets, they will have nanobot utility goo, programmable matter, superatoms, etc. Instead of solid machined metal parts, they will have biology-analogue items made of nanobot “cells” that clean themselves just like living things, sweeping out small particles and repairing microscopic damage automatically.

Materials will have physical properties that make cooling a non-issue: superconductors of heat, and materials that not only take the heat build up but use that to reclaim energy as it slowly cools down again.

But will you even have firearms? Nanoprojectiles in an airless world can launch thelselves without “guns”. They won’t punch through the suit with raw kenetic energy; they will digest the material and eat through dumb matter, and hack enemy smart matter or otherwise disrupt it using techniques that go with its principles of operation—that is, poison the suit material or enemy equitment so it stops being able to clear particles and repair itself (and is then vulnerable to being digested/disassembled).

Why fire a projectile or projectile delivery system at all, when the very regolith they walk on could become a swarm of nanobots that engulfs anything that touches it?

You might not be blasting each other with high-energy lasers, but instead beaming more subtle Bluetooth-like signals to hack the opponent’s systems and nanobot building blocks. Tell his suit to remove itself, or that the sensor readings for life support are wildly wrong.

In fact, using a primitive dumb-matter projectile might be an unexpected tactic that takes them off guard.

But why send ground troops to fight on a body like the moon? Drop a rock on them or use a ship’s drive, and end of enemy installation. Weapons of mass destruction will be commonplace adaptations of spacefaring infrastructure.

2 replaced http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/ with https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/
source | link

I’m amused at old sci-fi that has spaceships and maybe FTL but otherwise is exactly WWⅡ technology. They use slide rules, and any computers are huge room-filling machines that can barely compute an orbit when tended by a staff of experts. No microwave ovens, no composites, no plastic.

So, you postulate a galaxy-spanning civilization and can make war economicallywar economically.

But everything else is exactly like the civilization and technology that the author is familiar with today?

Imagine if a medevial (pre-gunpowder) author tried to envision “world war” spanning contenents, complete with 20th century sized battleships and aircraft. What kinds of spears, axes, lances, bows, etc. would be suitable for an “intercontenental war”?

A firearm similar to what is made today is the same kind of thing. Remember the lessons of spinoff technology (microwave ovens, radar, microelectronics) that go along with your postulated technology of galaxy-wide travel, and updated materials (plastic, composits) that go with a more advanced technology base.

So firearms made of carefully fitted metal parts with fine tolerances, need for lubrication and cooling, and expensive/precious so not disposable: that’s so 19th century!

Just like we have plastic foam cups and carbon fiber tennis rackets, they will have nanobot utility goo, programmable matter, superatoms, etc. Instead of solid machined metal parts, they will have biology-analogue items made of nanobot “cells” that clean themselves just like living things, sweeping out small particles and repairing microscopic damage automatically.

Materials will have physical properties that make cooling a non-issue: superconductors of heat, and materials that not only take the heat build up but use that to reclaim energy as it slowly cools down again.

But will you even have firearms? Nanoprojectiles in an airless world can launch thelselves without “guns”. They won’t punch through the suit with raw kenetic energy; they will digest the material and eat through dumb matter, and hack enemy smart matter or otherwise disrupt it using techniques that go with its principles of operation—that is, poison the suit material or enemy equitment so it stops being able to clear particles and repair itself (and is then vulnerable to being digested/disassembled).

Why fire a projectile or projectile delivery system at all, when the very regolith they walk on could become a swarm of nanobots that engulfs anything that touches it?

You might not be blasting each other with high-energy lasers, but instead beaming more subtle Bluetooth-like signals to hack the opponents systems and nanobot building blocks. Tell his suit to remove itself, or that the sensor readings for life support are wildly wrong.

In fact, using a primitive dumb-matter projectile might be an unexpected tactic that takes them off guard.

But why send ground troops to fight on a body like the moon? Drop a rock on them or use a ship’s drive, and end of enemy installation. Weapons of mass destruction will be commonplace adaptations of spacefaring infrastructure.

I’m amused at old sci-fi that has spaceships and maybe FTL but otherwise is exactly WWⅡ technology. They use slide rules, and any computers are huge room-filling machines that can barely compute an orbit when tended by a staff of experts. No microwave ovens, no composites, no plastic.

So, you postulate a galaxy-spanning civilization and can make war economically.

But everything else is exactly like the civilization and technology that the author is familiar with today?

Imagine if a medevial (pre-gunpowder) author tried to envision “world war” spanning contenents, complete with 20th century sized battleships and aircraft. What kinds of spears, axes, lances, bows, etc. would be suitable for an “intercontenental war”?

A firearm similar to what is made today is the same kind of thing. Remember the lessons of spinoff technology (microwave ovens, radar, microelectronics) that go along with your postulated technology of galaxy-wide travel, and updated materials (plastic, composits) that go with a more advanced technology base.

So firearms made of carefully fitted metal parts with fine tolerances, need for lubrication and cooling, and expensive/precious so not disposable: that’s so 19th century!

Just like we have plastic foam cups and carbon fiber tennis rackets, they will have nanobot utility goo, programmable matter, superatoms, etc. Instead of solid machined metal parts, they will have biology-analogue items made of nanobot “cells” that clean themselves just like living things, sweeping out small particles and repairing microscopic damage automatically.

Materials will have physical properties that make cooling a non-issue: superconductors of heat, and materials that not only take the heat build up but use that to reclaim energy as it slowly cools down again.

But will you even have firearms? Nanoprojectiles in an airless world can launch thelselves without “guns”. They won’t punch through the suit with raw kenetic energy; they will digest the material and eat through dumb matter, and hack enemy smart matter or otherwise disrupt it using techniques that go with its principles of operation—that is, poison the suit material or enemy equitment so it stops being able to clear particles and repair itself (and is then vulnerable to being digested/disassembled).

Why fire a projectile or projectile delivery system at all, when the very regolith they walk on could become a swarm of nanobots that engulfs anything that touches it?

You might not be blasting each other with high-energy lasers, but instead beaming more subtle Bluetooth-like signals to hack the opponents systems and nanobot building blocks. Tell his suit to remove itself, or that the sensor readings for life support are wildly wrong.

In fact, using a primitive dumb-matter projectile might be an unexpected tactic that takes them off guard.

But why send ground troops to fight on a body like the moon? Drop a rock on them or use a ship’s drive, and end of enemy installation. Weapons of mass destruction will be commonplace adaptations of spacefaring infrastructure.

I’m amused at old sci-fi that has spaceships and maybe FTL but otherwise is exactly WWⅡ technology. They use slide rules, and any computers are huge room-filling machines that can barely compute an orbit when tended by a staff of experts. No microwave ovens, no composites, no plastic.

So, you postulate a galaxy-spanning civilization and can make war economically.

But everything else is exactly like the civilization and technology that the author is familiar with today?

Imagine if a medevial (pre-gunpowder) author tried to envision “world war” spanning contenents, complete with 20th century sized battleships and aircraft. What kinds of spears, axes, lances, bows, etc. would be suitable for an “intercontenental war”?

A firearm similar to what is made today is the same kind of thing. Remember the lessons of spinoff technology (microwave ovens, radar, microelectronics) that go along with your postulated technology of galaxy-wide travel, and updated materials (plastic, composits) that go with a more advanced technology base.

So firearms made of carefully fitted metal parts with fine tolerances, need for lubrication and cooling, and expensive/precious so not disposable: that’s so 19th century!

Just like we have plastic foam cups and carbon fiber tennis rackets, they will have nanobot utility goo, programmable matter, superatoms, etc. Instead of solid machined metal parts, they will have biology-analogue items made of nanobot “cells” that clean themselves just like living things, sweeping out small particles and repairing microscopic damage automatically.

Materials will have physical properties that make cooling a non-issue: superconductors of heat, and materials that not only take the heat build up but use that to reclaim energy as it slowly cools down again.

But will you even have firearms? Nanoprojectiles in an airless world can launch thelselves without “guns”. They won’t punch through the suit with raw kenetic energy; they will digest the material and eat through dumb matter, and hack enemy smart matter or otherwise disrupt it using techniques that go with its principles of operation—that is, poison the suit material or enemy equitment so it stops being able to clear particles and repair itself (and is then vulnerable to being digested/disassembled).

Why fire a projectile or projectile delivery system at all, when the very regolith they walk on could become a swarm of nanobots that engulfs anything that touches it?

You might not be blasting each other with high-energy lasers, but instead beaming more subtle Bluetooth-like signals to hack the opponents systems and nanobot building blocks. Tell his suit to remove itself, or that the sensor readings for life support are wildly wrong.

In fact, using a primitive dumb-matter projectile might be an unexpected tactic that takes them off guard.

But why send ground troops to fight on a body like the moon? Drop a rock on them or use a ship’s drive, and end of enemy installation. Weapons of mass destruction will be commonplace adaptations of spacefaring infrastructure.

1
source | link