From: tkoenig@netcologne.de   
      
   Damien Valentine  schrieb:   
      
   > Also, because everybody's moving around at kilometers-per-second   
   > speeds, your ammunition doesn't actually need to be all that   
   > heavy.  See the Atomic Rockets website, where -- I believe on   
   > the "conventional weapons" page -- the author proposes using   
   > kitty-litter as ammunition.   
      
   That has to be a joke.   
      
   In order to be useful as a ballistic weapon, and unless your enemy   
   obliges you by not dodging, you'll have to accelerate your   
   "bullets", probably with a fairly high acceleration.  Kitty   
   litter doesn't have the mechanical strength for this.   
      
   > (Presumably an actual weapon would use sand, ball-bearings,   
   > flechettes, or something similar.)  You don't need huge honkin'   
   > artillery shells.   
      
   Some sort of shrapnel might be likely - accelerate towards your   
   target, with a killing delta v, and separate into multiple small   
   pieces before impact, to maximize probability that you would hit   
   something vital.   
      
   At close quarters, some sort of high-velocity machine-gun would   
   also be likely, to kill the enemy's shrapnel agents at a safe   
   distance and to punch holes in enemy ships.  Of course, this   
   could also be done by some sort of "grenade".   
      
   Lasers might well play an important role, but probably more to   
   blind sensors and to damage electronics.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)