OICW-Forbid or Allow?

[Frattimonde]

I have a question, for those of you that have heard of OICW.
Objective Induvidal Combat Weapon.
America lastest personal weapon.

A very devious weapon that can use airburst grenades which explodes after a certain time. Gives you nowhere to hide.

Some models are rumored to have even Smart Rounds.

Do you think such weapons should be allowed or not?

What I think..
At least It should not be availble for civilians.
It should only be allowed for millitant use, so only the army should
have this kinda of arms.

BTW: Here´s an Image for those whom wonder how It looks.
http://www.hkpro.com/oicwsoldier.jpg

[ZeroDarkStar]

Um, yeah? Anything that gives a soldier an advantage is good. If you want to outlaw OICWs, you'll have to outlaw GPS, Night-Vision, Satelite tracking, nuclear bombs, air support, armored vechicles, anything the opponent doesn't have.

[Seal]

yeah, let's bring balance to the modern battlefields by the means of nerfstick

[Frattimonde]

Um, yeah? Anything that gives a soldier an advantage is good. If you want to outlaw OICWs, you'll have to outlaw GPS, Night-Vision, Satelite tracking, nuclear bombs, air support, armored vechicles, anything the opponent doesn't have. I can agree with this weapon to a certain point.

But definatly no Smart Rounds.
That would be to cowardly.

Also only miltary should have access to this.
No law enforcement.

And strict control of distrubution so that the weapon dosen´t fall Into evil hands. Like mafia or terrorists (Evil Hands).

As I said, to a certain extent.

[ZeroDarkStar]

But definatly no Smart Rounds. That would be to cowardly.

Whether you think it's cowardly or not, the fact remains that it gives NATO troops (or American if you don't like the whole Europe and America vs. The World thing) a advantage on the battlefield. Would you sacrifice soldier's lives that may have been saves if they could have used smart rounds, just because you think it's cowardly? Please.

Also only miltary should have access to this.
No law enforcement.

I agree.

the weapon dosen´t fall Into evil hands. Like mafia or terrorists.

There is no way to keep standard-issue weapons off the black market. If the soldier dies holding the weapon, and isn't secured, then the OPFORs are bound to find the weapon.

[Frattimonde]

Fine, this was just a question.

Perhaps you are right.
That weapon Is not at least as evil as Bio-Tech weapons or Devious Land Mines.

So I might agree with that weapon anyway.

[SSA_Ultimasheep]

And strict control of distrubution so that the weapon dosen´t fall Into evil hands. Like mafia or terrorists (Evil Hands).
.or that hands of most of my friends. but anyway that looks like a really devestating weapon. i can't think of anything other than millitary uses for that thing.

[TheGreatBrain]

But definatly no Smart Rounds.
That would be to cowardly.And smart bombs, which we have been using for some time... you didn't mention those. What about bombers in general, which cause immeasurable carnage, often without the pilot being touched?

Come on, now. Don't romanticize combat, the chivalrous brand of war died centuries ago.

[Battlecruiser]

That would be to cowardly.
In guerilla warfare, it doesn't matter. Anything goes because there aren't any rules. If you want to see non-cowardly battles, your going to have to go back a few hundred years.

[Frattimonde]

Perhaps.
Yes, true but who wants to run around with a sword In his hand.
I really meant that there are less cowardly assault rifles.
But, yes you speak true.

But still I suppose there are certain advantages with weapon.

On a tech-viem, then I have critisize the weapons huge size.
Even If the AB grenades makes It efficient, It still looks kinda
clumsy.

Hmm, strange.
Seems like I both disagree and agree about this.
Well, so long as no aims that gun at me, then I shall not botherd.

BTW: Hey Battlecruiser, do you know when Halo 2 Is coming for PC

[Carnage]

I can agree with this weapon to a certain point.

But definatly no Smart Rounds.
That would be too cowardly.

So is putting grenades in your baby's diaper and throwing it at American soldiers. :D

Goodbye my sweetheeeart
Helloooo, Vietnam.

What a fun war that was. It rained blood in Hell those days. Now it's just a trinkle with the occasional teen suicide. :P

[Frattimonde]

So is putting grenades in your baby's diaper and throwing it at American soldiers. :D

Goodbye my sweetheeeart
Helloooo, Vietnam.

What a fun war that was. It rained blood in Hell those days. Now it's just a trinkle with the occasional teen suicide. :P
You´re just to lame to be funny.
Post a serious post, please.

[ShawnManX]

He went to sleep, so he won't see your comment till tomorrow, I would love to see war go back to horses and swords, but it's not going to happen any time soon, at least not till after we nuke ourselves half to oblivion.

[Ark-templarius]

Yes, true but who wants to run around with a sword In his hand.
I really meant that there are less cowardly assault rifles.
Welcome to the 19th century. The American Civil War, for example, was a senseless waste of lives because all they had was single-shot rifles, pistols and cannons with a later arrival of the gatling gun. There was no superior show of arms to bring about a quicker resolution because they had the same technology.

Step back even further to the 18th century. European warfare was even more senseless because vast armies would form up in firing lines and shoot at each other until a general conceeded defeat.

Warfare is anything but honorable. Modern combat demands becoming impersonal because of the psychological effects of killing your enemies. The closer you are to them, the more human they are and less of "just a target". This is why swordfighting and medieval combat was so intense emotionally. Unless you hated that person, you felt sorry for taking their life. In a way, that person wasn't much different than you but just on the wrong side. The more impersonal it is, the less guilt you have to face.

Cowardace is based on opinion. Cowardly because you make your enemies impersonal targets and strike them from afar? Cowardly because you use civilians as shields and or vehicles to carry out demands through hostage-taking? Depends on who you ask.

[singo]

I have a question, for those of you that have heard of OICW.
Objective Induvidal Combat Weapon.
America lastest personal weapon.

A very devious weapon that can use airburst grenades which explodes after a certain time. Gives you nowhere to hide.

Some models are rumored to have even Smart Rounds.
In my opinion, a very cowardly weapon.

Do you think such weapons should be allowed or not?

BTW: Here´s an Image for those whom wonder how It looks.
http://www.hkpro.com/oicwsoldier.jpg

smart bullets..... i would very much like to see that.....and face it, the M-16 is outdated (designed in the late 40's/early 50's i think)

and where is the grenade launcher...could have sworn those things had one......

[Frattimonde]

smart bullets..... i would very much like to see that.....and face it, the M-16 is outdated (designed in the late 40's/early 50's i think)

and where is the grenade launcher...could have sworn those things had one......
It´s above the 5.56mm gun barrel.
An above the barrel Grenade-Launcher.

Just so know.

Unless you were referring to an other gun.

[singo]

ahh, just that most guns have it under the barrel, thought the calibre of the thing looked oversized.......

[Jedi_Templar]

Of course superior firepower shouldn't be made illegal.

For example, during the Middle Ages the pope made the crossbow illegal due to requests from various kings, knighs, lords, etc. since it was thought to be cheap. A common man that had about a week of practice could take down a fully armoured knight that had been in training his entire life. Of course, the superior firepower would have made a difference in the battlefield and would have allowed wars to be resolved quickly (look at the 100 years war, which was eventually won after the English adopted the longbow and decimated the French forces of knights with it).

While the M-16 is still good imo, if the new rifle means less American dead, go for it. Then again, less wars (especially for bs reasons, like fake WMD's) would mean even less American dead.

[Battlecruiser]

BTW: Hey Battlecruiser, do you know when Halo 2 Is coming for PCAs of now, Bungie has not released any statements on whether or not there will be a PC version of Halo 2. Thought there probably will be a PC version, sometime after Halo 2 for X-Box is out, which is November 9th 2004.

[singo]

As of now, Bungie has not released any statements on whether or not there will be a PC version of Halo 2. Thought there probably will be a PC version, sometime after Halo 2 for X-Box is out, which is November 9th 2004.
if its not delayed....AGAIN grrr.......

[Montgomery]

Off topic...

On Halo 2, the only reason Halo PC/Mac came out was because the game was originally intentioned for the PC and for the Mac - it was designed before the Xbox.

Bungie has NO plans for PC release of Halo 2 - don't expect to see any.

On topic...

For the stupidest reason ever, the OICW looks cooler [than the M-16] - it looks like something out of a near-future sci-fi (like 2030 and such). For that reason... go with the OICW. And 'cowardice' in war is stupid. Everything is cowardly. These days, the country with the best technology wins.

Just hope the Yanks let us Canucks tinker with it, like we did with the M-16 (the Canadian version is called a C-7 - its got a few extra features on it, like full automatic).

[Fenguin]

If you think that's cowardly, wait until you see what the people at the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies at MIT are coming up with. :D

And yes, they should allow it. Guns in general are cowardly. But Americans being owned isn't fun.

[Cygnus]

Also remember this is a weapon, why should it be banned? This thing isn’t violating international law does it? In fact I thought the idea was to stay ahead of the game and have the best technology and in order to win. Just because I have better weapons than you do doesn’t make me “cowardly”. I just means that I have a better weapon than you do.

Any new technology also has the chance to fall into enemy hands, that’s the way it’s always been in warfare. I have a better, more durable sword? That means you’ll do anything to find the ways to make it and equip your men with it or atleast something that can compete with it (or worse case the best that you can). The same concept goes for anything today.

[Dark_Viper]

yes that gun should be an Army only weapon...


and about the falling into wrong hands once dead part..

once armed... it should not leave the soldire using it untill its disarmed... if the soldier dies and droppes the weapon of an enemy soldier picks it up.. it should automatically self destruct.. its the only safe way to keep it safe..

DV

[Frattimonde]

yes that gun should be an Army only weapon...


and about the falling into wrong hands once dead part..

once armed... it should not leave the soldire using it untill its disarmed... if the soldier dies and droppes the weapon of an enemy soldier picks it up.. it should automatically self destruce.. its the only safe way to keep it safe..

DV Hmm, sounds like Judge Dread.

The weapons there did set off an electronic charge If someone else than
a judge did touch them.

[TheBB]

That weapon is way too heavy to every become a standard combat rifle/grenade-launcher/woolaboo anyway. At least, in the kind of "wars" I "fought", a weapon of this size would be much too heavy to outweigh the advantages of being able to lob 8 different kinds of explosives in every direction, or whatever.

That said, as "cowardly" as it may be, that's never going to work as an argument to ban a weapon from the military world. Then, I'd rather have banned war altogether, although I don't see that happening in the near (or far, to tell the truth) future either.

If you're talking about banning the weapon in the civilian part of society, well, I hope for the sake of worldwide sanity noone ever actually considered making it legal for civilians in the first place.

Bottom line, stop figuring out new ways to kill people. It's a big ass waste of time, money and other resources. Use it for something useful instead.

Judge Dread

Judge Dredd. =P

[Dark_Viper]

That weapon is way too heavy to every become a standard combat rifle/grenade-launcher/woolaboo anyway. At least, in the kind of "wars" I "fought", a weapon of this size would be much too heavy to outweigh the advantages of being able to lob 8 different kinds of explosives in every direction, or whatever.

That said, as "cowardly" as it may be, that's never going to work as an argument to ban a weapon from the military world. Then, I'd rather have banned war altogether, although I don't see that happening in the near (or far, to tell the truth) future either.

If you're talking about banning the weapon in the civilian part of society, well, I hope for the sake of worldwide sanity noone ever actually considered making it legal for civilians in the first place.

Bottom line, stop figuring out new ways to kill people. It's a big ass waste of time, money and other resources. Use it for something useful instead.



Judge Dredd. =Pit looks like its made out of light weight alloyes to me.. like hardend aluminum and plasticks on the casing... its great how light you can make your weapons nowadays
in wars.. like a Competition, its all about leverage... and its war that pushed technology further faster..

the opposing side will get a better gun... the defensive side will adapt to that gun and make a better defence... ect. ect.

the only reason that technology is as far as it is now. is because of the 1st and 2nd world war...

[Frattimonde]

I think that the weapon uses a hard plastic polymer material as the shell.
Same polymer as used In the clock pistols.

The mechanical parts are of hardned steel I think.
Not aliminium.

But that´s just what I´ve heard.

It could be titanium as well, but I don´t think so.
Since It would be pretty expensive.

[Dark_Viper]

true..


they could use eith hardened steel or hardened Aluminum .. both would surfice.. and yea.. titanium would be a little cost inefective

[TheBB]

http://www.ghostrecon.net/html/arms_oicw.htm

One of the technical aspects being looked at by HK is the weight of the weapon, which currently is thought to be around 20 pounds, in comparison to an 8 pound M16.

20 pounds is very much to carry around 24/7 in the mountains/forests/deserts. Its high-end technology only justifies itself in combat. When the soldier is not in combat, it becomes a liability. Thus, to justify the weight of the weapon, the soldier must do roughly twice as much fighting as he does "now", with an M16.

[Frattimonde]

$15000 for each unit?
Damn expensive.

The G36 only costs only about $1200, and could certainly be just as deadly If equipped with a x3.5 optic scope and AG36 Greanade Launcher.
And It´s certainly much lighter than the XM29 OICW.

So that weapon has pretty many disadvantages It seems.

[Sodertalje]

Why bother? If Americas pissed, all they'll have to do is to press the little Red button(Nuke)

[Frattimonde]

Why bother? If Americas pissed, all they'll have to do is to press the little Red button(Nuke) Yeah, but however.

Then they would turn the whole world against themselves,
and the radiation would spread itself with winds throughout the world.

And just cause one hell of a peril.
So I think they prefer to use High-Tech ground and air assault equipment.

[Ark-templarius]

Why bother? If Americas pissed, all they'll have to do is to press the little Red button(Nuke)
There's a thing called "mutually assured destruction".

[GiaDragoness]

I beleive the old saying is that "all is fair in love and war." If we don't capitolize on new ideas and inventions, God only knows who else will. If we don't use smart rounds, who's to say our enemies won't? Think about it, if we said "nuclear weapons should not be allowed," how many other countries do you think would have us, the USA, under their heel? While such destructive weapons should not be fit for civilian use, they should be used by our soldeirs, in order to help keep the peace better. In fact, I found an interesting new rifle made by German engineering that the US is supposedly looking into switching the old, out-dated M-16s to. Let me see if I can find it and post it. Be right back.

*EDIT: Ok, here it is. Say hello, perfect dark weaponry! ^_^

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_XM8,,00.html?ESRC=recruiting.n l

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[Dark_Viper]

yes ive seen thoes befor when my friend was making copys of thoes in Second Life.. and that had to be about 4 monthes ago now...

[Maegtelluma]

I know that I'm a little late, but I'd like to express my opinion here:

Although some people think this weapon isn't humane, frankly, most enemies that America opposes would use the weapon against us if they got the chance. Everyone in the united states gets so upset when there are casualties on the battlefield, and I think that this would greatly reduce such deaths. Usually, at least, the US Army is moving for protection, and if it means getting a few "lucky" kills on enemies to protect not only your men but hostages, refugees, etc, it's worth it to me.

Now, if the UN or someone like that decides that this is an inhumane weapon and that it needs to be banned, don't go fighting it, but while you can use it for good, I say go ahead. But don't let this be a police gun, because the chance for a "renegade" is higher, and make sure to keep track of them so that they don't fall into the wrong hands.

[singo]

*EDIT: Ok, here it is. Say hello, perfect dark weaponry! ^_^

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_XM8,,00.html?ESRC=recruiting.n l

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:
lol, changes colour "on the fly"

how useful is that on todays battlefield....its not a gun, its a fashion accessory

"Get your XM-8 rifles here, in a range of tasteful colours...."


And any gun is only as good as the soldier that fires it...and given the US army's number of "Friendly fire" casulties...........

[GiaDragoness]

lol, changes colour "on the fly"

how useful is that on todays battlefield....its not a gun, its a fashion accessory

"Get your XM-8 rifles here, in a range of tasteful colours...."


And any gun is only as good as the soldier that fires it...and given the US army's number of "Friendly fire" casulties...........

Clearly, you have never seen "beverly hills cop 3." lol, besides, if I wana go out blastin badguys, I wanna look fashionable! This is the evidence that female soldiers will soon rule!!!!!

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[Montgomery]

Man, that gun rocks. I'd take it over the OCIW anyday. At least give the XM8 to Special Forces!

If I ever get elected and become Defence Minister in this country (in however many years), I'd avocate switching to the XM8 instead of the C-7.

[ZeroDarkStar]

once armed... it should not leave the soldire using it untill its disarmed... if the soldier dies and droppes the weapon of an enemy soldier picks it up.. it should automatically self destruct.. its the only safe way to keep it safe..
DV

And how the hell do you suppose that's going to work? How does it concern friend from foe? And most importantly, why the hell would they put explosives inside a rifle? One wrong hit to the weapon and that soldier, along with those around him, are down for the count, whereas a standard rifle could take multiple bullet hits without repercussions.

[Montgomery]

Yeah, a self destruct option would be kinda stupid. You could always code them so that a soldier could insert their dog tags, if you wanted that kind of security. It would be the ultimate safety.

[singo]

Clearly, you have never seen "beverly hills cop 3." lol, besides, if I wana go out blastin badguys, I wanna look fashionable! This is the evidence that female soldiers will soon rule!!!!!

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:
can it have humorous pictures on the side aswell??


ive changed my mind...i want one

[Whiteknight]

The next world war will not be fought with guns and bombs, all of this is pointless.

[singo]

The next world war will not be fought with guns and bombs, all of this is pointless.
it will and it is.


its already begun.