[Ultra Tech] Non-lethal warfare at TL9 - Page 2

seasalt · 09-21-2023, 02:25 PM

So one concept a friend of mine came up with was a twist on a traditional sci-fi military campaign, in that it takes place in a setting where the value of human lives is considered very high compared to modern earth, on all sides of the conflict.

To be clear, this isn't an idea of some completely pacifistic utopia. Violence and the use of force per se is not considered inherently wrong. States and other groups still attempt to impose their will upon others by force. Wars and violent crime are far from unheard of. It's just the act of intentionally killing others which is taboo.

And, to clarify further, this isn't a setting where the taboo on killing is absolute or taken to absurd degrees. In any kind of military operation, it's inevitable that there will be a few deaths due to accidents, even if there isn't any combat at all. A single death in combat isn't considered grounds for calling off an entire war or an immediate ceasefire. The military forces involved and the societies behind them still have a concept of "acceptable losses", it's just that...
1) that number is much lower than ours, to the degree that KIA numbers hitting the triple digits will quickly produce pressure for peace talks, and
2) the lives of the enemy are not considered more expendable than the lives of one's own troops.

With that in mind, what kind of weapons and military forces (using the Ultra Tech book as a baseline rather than trying to re-invent the wheel) would a TL 9 society use? First, a few more ground rules on how warfare is viewed in such a setting:

Intentionally sending one's own soldiers to take actions that are certain or very likely to result in their deaths places moral culpability on you, their commander, not on the enemy. You can't order your men to throw their bodies in the paths of the enemy's vehicles or anything of the sort - doing so would seen as murder of your own soldiers.
Tricking the enemy into killing your own soldiers by disguising them as robots or mixing them in among unpiloted vehicles without clearly marking them is likewise considered to be murderous disregard for the lives of one's own troops.
Causing permanent or debilitating injuries intentionally is, although still more acceptable than killing, considered to be a last resort which should only be done when an enemy can't be neutralized in any other way.
Destruction of civilian property is also seen as a crime, BUT is acceptable if it is absolutely militarily necessary. Attacking a building being used as a fighting position or a factory producing weapons would be acceptable, destroying enemy power stations or food supplies would not be.

Of course, this leaves a MASSIVE amount of grey areas, and navigating those grey areas would be a major part of any strategy. Is placing your human soldiers too close to a robotic tank that might produce shrapnel if it's blown up criminal disregard for their lives? Sure, the enemy shouldn't shoot it with an ATGM if there are infantry standing next to it, but the tank has a higher profile; what if they other side didn't see your guys standing there? Maybe there's a less hazardous alternative to knocking out such tanks - but what if it's ineffective? What if risking a few lives is the difference between freedom and subjugation and exploitation?

Anyway - my thoughts are that the most effective thing to do would be to combine a mix of human soldiers and piloted vehicles, and robotic drones. If you use only drones, you're giving your enemy free reign to use their most lethal and destructive weapons indiscriminately, while your bots will have to have 'nerfed' weapons that are less effective, especially since robots are less capable of dealing with the nuances of incapacitating an enemy soldier. But, if you use only humans/piloted craft and no drones, you're giving the enemy license to focus completely on non-lethal incapacitating weapons and giving him no choice but to retreat when robotic platforms show up en-masse. I imagine that the reasoning of fielding living soldiers to force the enemy to limit their options is a bit taboo to discuss, but engaged in universally. That being said, attempts to exploit this that seem too blatant - such as, for example, putting pilots in small, low-altitude aircraft or flight systems that are almost certain to crash fatally if they get hit at all - will be rejected, first of all by the troops being ordered to use them.

Which weapons would be best for destroying an armored fighting vehicle like a tank without killing the crew - bearing in mind that such a vehicle will be designed to offer maximum protection and survivability to that crew in the case of attack? If we're sticking to rules as written, it seems like the best weapons would be small-caliber shaped charge projectiles designed to be used from close range, specifically targeting the tracks/drive system and weapon turrets, using the minimum amount of force to breach through the armor and accepting that multiple hits will probably be required to disable the target fully, so long as it lessens the risk of killing the crew.

For infantry soldiers, it's much trickier. If they're covered in fully enclosed body armor such as a "combat hardsuit" from Ultra-Tech, most of the non-lethal weapons listed in the book will be useless. How do you handle them? One option is for your own armored soldiers to engage in in hand-to-hand combat and wrestle them into submission. And indeed, I'd imagine that would be a pretty common tactic... buut that'll only work if the enemy can't figure out a way to neutralize you at range.

Robots could likewise rush forward and aggressively grapple the enemy - but those are something they're allowed to shoot with armor-piercing bullets.

"Glue guns" and other weapons designed to entrap and restrain enemy soldiers would have their place, but if that's the only thing you're using, the enemy will be well-equipped with countermeasures - every soldier will be carrying glue-dissolving spray.

How about impact weapons like the "memory plastic baton" ammo in the book, designed to knock the target on his ass without penetrating the armor? That's a good start but likely to cause debilitating spinal or brain damage if the effect is just a little too strong, and, from a tactical standpoint, such "nerf" rounds will have a very short effective range and be useless beyond it.

I think that you might actually need to use some lethal-ish weapons. I can't see how to stop a man in a combat hardsuit at range without something that will penetrate through the armor and cause injury, and the laws of war would recognize that sometimes it's necessary. Something might be used like a liquid propellant 5.7mm gatling carbine firing armor-piercing discarding sabot rounds. That sounds pretty lethal - but, this is 4d6+8 small piercing damage (counting the liquid propellant bonus) going up against DR 25 (factoring in the armor divisor). If you rolled four 6s as the damage, you would still only inflict 4 points of damage to the person hit due to the wounding modifier for small piercing. Since these suits would be loaded up with life-saving systems to stabilize the user if they're wounded, this makes it unlikely they'll die, especially since it'd be very rare for soldiers to keep fighting after taking a wound, but...

The problem is if one of these rounds hits the helmet and goes into the skull hit location. Then it's going against DR 15 (after armor divisor and adding the skull itself)... which means a good damage roll of all fours will deal 36 damage and is likely to kill the target. So you can see how tough this situation is. Perhaps a very small caliber single-shot rifle designed to only be used with aimed shots at the arms and legs could be a solution?

09-21-2023, 02:25 PM	#1
seasalt Join Date: May 2022	[Ultra Tech] Non-lethal warfare at TL9 So one concept a friend of mine came up with was a twist on a traditional sci-fi military campaign, in that it takes place in a setting where the value of human lives is considered very high compared to modern earth, on all sides of the conflict. To be clear, this isn't an idea of some completely pacifistic utopia. Violence and the use of force per se is not considered inherently wrong. States and other groups still attempt to impose their will upon others by force. Wars and violent crime are far from unheard of. It's just the act of intentionally killing others which is taboo. And, to clarify further, this isn't a setting where the taboo on killing is absolute or taken to absurd degrees. In any kind of military operation, it's inevitable that there will be a few deaths due to accidents, even if there isn't any combat at all. A single death in combat isn't considered grounds for calling off an entire war or an immediate ceasefire. The military forces involved and the societies behind them still have a concept of "acceptable losses", it's just that... 1) that number is much lower than ours, to the degree that KIA numbers hitting the triple digits will quickly produce pressure for peace talks, and 2) the lives of the enemy are not considered more expendable than the lives of one's own troops. With that in mind, what kind of weapons and military forces (using the Ultra Tech book as a baseline rather than trying to re-invent the wheel) would a TL 9 society use? First, a few more ground rules on how warfare is viewed in such a setting: Intentionally sending one's own soldiers to take actions that are certain or very likely to result in their deaths places moral culpability on you, their commander, not on the enemy. You can't order your men to throw their bodies in the paths of the enemy's vehicles or anything of the sort - doing so would seen as murder of your own soldiers. Tricking the enemy into killing your own soldiers by disguising them as robots or mixing them in among unpiloted vehicles without clearly marking them is likewise considered to be murderous disregard for the lives of one's own troops. Causing permanent or debilitating injuries intentionally is, although still more acceptable than killing, considered to be a last resort which should only be done when an enemy can't be neutralized in any other way. Destruction of civilian property is also seen as a crime, BUT is acceptable if it is absolutely militarily necessary. Attacking a building being used as a fighting position or a factory producing weapons would be acceptable, destroying enemy power stations or food supplies would not be. Of course, this leaves a MASSIVE amount of grey areas, and navigating those grey areas would be a major part of any strategy. Is placing your human soldiers too close to a robotic tank that might produce shrapnel if it's blown up criminal disregard for their lives? Sure, the enemy shouldn't shoot it with an ATGM if there are infantry standing next to it, but the tank has a higher profile; what if they other side didn't see your guys standing there? Maybe there's a less hazardous alternative to knocking out such tanks - but what if it's ineffective? What if risking a few lives is the difference between freedom and subjugation and exploitation? Anyway - my thoughts are that the most effective thing to do would be to combine a mix of human soldiers and piloted vehicles, and robotic drones. If you use only drones, you're giving your enemy free reign to use their most lethal and destructive weapons indiscriminately, while your bots will have to have 'nerfed' weapons that are less effective, especially since robots are less capable of dealing with the nuances of incapacitating an enemy soldier. But, if you use only humans/piloted craft and no drones, you're giving the enemy license to focus completely on non-lethal incapacitating weapons and giving him no choice but to retreat when robotic platforms show up en-masse. I imagine that the reasoning of fielding living soldiers to force the enemy to limit their options is a bit taboo to discuss, but engaged in universally. That being said, attempts to exploit this that seem too blatant - such as, for example, putting pilots in small, low-altitude aircraft or flight systems that are almost certain to crash fatally if they get hit at all - will be rejected, first of all by the troops being ordered to use them. Which weapons would be best for destroying an armored fighting vehicle like a tank without killing the crew - bearing in mind that such a vehicle will be designed to offer maximum protection and survivability to that crew in the case of attack? If we're sticking to rules as written, it seems like the best weapons would be small-caliber shaped charge projectiles designed to be used from close range, specifically targeting the tracks/drive system and weapon turrets, using the minimum amount of force to breach through the armor and accepting that multiple hits will probably be required to disable the target fully, so long as it lessens the risk of killing the crew. For infantry soldiers, it's much trickier. If they're covered in fully enclosed body armor such as a "combat hardsuit" from Ultra-Tech, most of the non-lethal weapons listed in the book will be useless. How do you handle them? One option is for your own armored soldiers to engage in in hand-to-hand combat and wrestle them into submission. And indeed, I'd imagine that would be a pretty common tactic... buut that'll only work if the enemy can't figure out a way to neutralize you at range. Robots could likewise rush forward and aggressively grapple the enemy - but those are something they're allowed to shoot with armor-piercing bullets. "Glue guns" and other weapons designed to entrap and restrain enemy soldiers would have their place, but if that's the only thing you're using, the enemy will be well-equipped with countermeasures - every soldier will be carrying glue-dissolving spray. How about impact weapons like the "memory plastic baton" ammo in the book, designed to knock the target on his ass without penetrating the armor? That's a good start but likely to cause debilitating spinal or brain damage if the effect is just a little too strong, and, from a tactical standpoint, such "nerf" rounds will have a very short effective range and be useless beyond it. I think that you might actually need to use some lethal-ish weapons. I can't see how to stop a man in a combat hardsuit at range without something that will penetrate through the armor and cause injury, and the laws of war would recognize that sometimes it's necessary. Something might be used like a liquid propellant 5.7mm gatling carbine firing armor-piercing discarding sabot rounds. That sounds pretty lethal - but, this is 4d6+8 small piercing damage (counting the liquid propellant bonus) going up against DR 25 (factoring in the armor divisor). If you rolled four 6s as the damage, you would still only inflict 4 points of damage to the person hit due to the wounding modifier for small piercing. Since these suits would be loaded up with life-saving systems to stabilize the user if they're wounded, this makes it unlikely they'll die, especially since it'd be very rare for soldiers to keep fighting after taking a wound, but... The problem is if one of these rounds hits the helmet and goes into the skull hit location. Then it's going against DR 15 (after armor divisor and adding the skull itself)... which means a good damage roll of all fours will deal 36 damage and is likely to kill the target. So you can see how tough this situation is. Perhaps a very small caliber single-shot rifle designed to only be used with aimed shots at the arms and legs could be a solution?