The E wrote:The last significant development in firearms technology was the StG 44. Even there, it was more a development in terms of tactics than it was in technological terms; the recognition of the benefits of outfitting every soldier with the capability to both do precision engagement over standard distances but also to provide high volumes of automatic fire when required.
The last significan development was the adoption of intermediate cartrige and bullet, to be exact.
Ever since then, most developments have been in the area of optics and gun accessories to make guns more useful; the basic mechanisms haven't changed at all.
And so you are trying to claim that theere would be no advances in firearms technology? May I remind you AGAIN, that smoothbore muskets were in use for several centuries, before they were driven out by rifles in just about three decades...
This is something we're seeing today whenever a military tries to adopt a new gun: Even decades old designs like the AR-15 are still so good that finding something to do with the gun or put on the gun to make it fundamentally better is really hard.
Yes, that's why Russian Army generally stuck with smoothbores in 1850s. As Crimean War demonstrated clearly, it was a Very Bad Cause of Conservatism, because the rifles made "perfected by centuries" design of smoothbore musket outdated.
New technologies, like lasers, railguns, coilguns or gyrojets, need to offer compelling benefits to offset the drawbacks that their lack of decades of use and iteration produce. In the case of rifles and spitzer bullets, they offered a clear advantage in accuracy, and it still took a long time before they were universally adopted, because it took time for manufacturing capabilities to improve to make it practical to put them into large-scale production.
I agree with that, but what are you trying to prove by that?
Your hypothetical gyrojet weapon (which you're now telling us is basically half-way to a Banksian knife missile) is too costly.
Please give me ANY cost calculations.
As you said, you need something very close to post-scarcity conditions to even think about manufacturing them,
No, you claimed that without basically any proofs. When I replied that Minie balls represented basically the same kind of challenge and yet everybody turned from hand-made musket bullet to machined rifle bullets in just a few decades - you tactifully ignored my point.
at which point you kinda need to ask yourself why you're still thinking about sending out infantry. If you can build a weapon as capable as that in a form factor that would fit into a magazine that a soldier can carry, why aren't you building a drone that carries "dumb" weapon systems like a traditional rifle?
Basically, this is the question for nearly every sci-fi setting.
Even penny items, if bought a million times, will add up to very real costs. We can accept these costs if the benefits are there to justify them, but in your case, they just aren't:
Proofs, if you please.
And yet, homelessness is still a thing even in the most prosperous nations.
Compared to just two centuries ago, the situation improved not just drastically, but almost magically (as you like to use this therm). Per Europe, average level of homelessnes is less than 0,1%.
Oh, sorry, I thought you were trying to have a discussion on a level beyond pure handwavium. You're literally just waving your hands and positing that magic will happen to make all your dreams come true without thinking through the consequences of said magic.
Oh, sorry, I thought that, for once, you would bring at least SOME proofs for your claims? Currently in this topic only I presented some facts, like the existence of ultra-compact jets, the development of "smart bullets", like EXACTO and currently-unnamed Russian model, the "rifle revolution" of XIX century. You are just moaning about "this would be too costly" without any attempt to prove your point.