God if only the forum rules let me post a joke about that.

I'm a much bigger fan of older weaponry

Colt .45 SAA
Winchester Lever Action (though I don't think this was probably used in any major American war)
Springfield
Gatling gun
M1 Garand
Colt 1911 Semi-auto
Thompson M1A1 (not the gangster one, these were used in WWII, they had no fore grip or drum barrel I actually really like the Capone era one too but since it's weapons of war)
AK-47
M16


that's all I can think of at the moment

Of course, you'll miss and damage the weapon....


Also, I found this old post of mine:

Flintlocks do look pretty, when a cache of Nepalese weapons was found a couple of years ago, they were selling both Tower and Company Brown Bess muskets through auctions and miltiaria dealerships. They were all snapped up in a couple of months. You can still get some flints and musket-balls here and there though.

Speaking of firearms, the http://www.nelsontactical.com/products/images/browning/Citori-XS-Special-High-Post-Rib.jpg is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen. O/U shotguns make me all hot under the collar...

http://list.valvesoftware.com/Hossom_Kopis02-ww.jpg
or
Colt M1911

http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/1602007/bpictures/topovi_7.jpg (30x173mm), the biggest gun I've ever fired (have so far around 150-200 shots with it). The one I've been using is the middle one in the picture.

other
1. Nuclear weapons, for the sheer power and IMO humanity taking another step to control its nature by having the means to wipe out itself. I believe in nuclear peace. :nod:
2. Two-handed swords, again for their power.
3. Luger P08
4. And last but not least, railguns

I see your Luger and raise you a Mauser http://www.pistolcollection.lu/images/MauserC96%20019.jpg. Look http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/7/7b/Dl-44.jpg?

spears........i love spears. spears are one of the earliest weapons created by man. they have been used throughout history by all civilizations and have been one of the most effective weapons of war ever. spears have made appearances in many games the best and most recent being the mount and blade games. some developers say that they cant get spears to work in there game *cough* skyrim *cough*. however, we know that is just silly talk because if a teeny weeny company like taleworld can get them to work without being overpowered then a big giant company..........say bethesda for a random example should be able to easily put them in their games. :whistling:

I have to go with the C9A2, nothing says room clearing like a 3 foot LMG. Also my life will be completed when I shoot a P90, I love that gun so much. If only it wasn't illegal.

Spears are mainly a formation fighting weapon though - in a typical 1v1 scenario, a spear should be dropped in favour of something a little shorter. A poor reason not to have spears but there you go. Personally, I would love to have them but then again, I would also want crossbows, lances, pikes and other exotic weaponry...

Nuclear Warheads, preferably super powerful 100 mega-tonne ones. Launch one and it's game over for the other side. Quick and easy, and probably cheaper in the long run than waging a full-blown war anyway. (Both in lives lost and $$).

The standards, the Remington 870 and the 700.

As for military weapons, the Steyr AUG, is pretty damn cool.

Vehicles, the T-90 MBT, the NZLAV (Stryker for you Americans), and pretty much all German WW2 tanks.

Aircraft, the F1-17a and the A10 are pretty much as sixy as they come.

Also, the MG42/MG3, that is pretty much the coolest gun ever.

http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/1289119208.jpg

If prototype weapons count, I want one of those Power Armors what US is developing, armed with jet pack, 20mm gatling and pair of Javelins on shoulders.

You know why the huge 50 - 100mega-tonne bombs were developed? So you could drop one on a population centre and destroy the industrial capabilities without having to have good intelligence. Drop one on London and you instantly have ~5 million deaths.

But of course if you drop one on London Britain launches back at you, which means you have 16 - 32 missiles coming back at possibly your population centres (Because your first strike is at the Clyde for obvious reasons, you don't have the full number of missiles)

Plus, NATO would also have to launch. France probably would as a 100 mega ton bomb on London would cause major issues for France if the wind was in the right direction. In any case, you seriously annoy the EU.

In other words, use a nuclear weapon and you have a death toll that make world war two look like a walk in the park.


It is game over for you and the other side and your reputation.

As a Finn my favorite weapon is, you guessed it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suomi_KP/-31
Reliable and effective. I don't know if it was that effective nowadays, but still is pretty effective.

Lets say it came from the US - who, as far as I understand at the moment, hold 'space' superiority at the moment. As well as a massive anti-ICBM grid over the entire country.

Say they dropped it on London, (and it actually made it there) it would cause issues for France, etc., but if you were going to do that, you'd probably predict that and just point another one at them to 'persuade' them from even trying to retaliate in any meaningful way. Off the top of my head the US has 1200~ nukes (not sure after they decommissioned some), which is more than enough to dissuade any attacks from other countries. Seriously, who wants to be the one that pokes the US enough for them to even look at using a first strike nuke? Add onto the anti-ICBM grid, the US has by far the largest Air Superiority, nobody would even be able to get to them without getting dropped.



Not necessarily (on the death toll part). There were far more casualties in WWII from normal warfare than there was from the two nukes dropped on Japan - lets face it, dropping a nuke on someone would cripple them to the point where they don't really have a realistic chance of fighting back, especially if they're sitting there thinking "when/where is the next one going to hit?"

And if you're going to use a nuke, I don't think you're going to give a damn about your reputation by that point.

I'm not saying use it as a 1st strike because you suddenly decided that you wanted more land under your control (because nuked land would be pretty damn worthless after a blast of that magnitude), I'm saying if you were provoked by something serious enough to lead to a full-scale war. If you're going to go to war, why not end if before it's even started?

I'll go with an elegent weapon... from a more civilized age

They were to be in war time use until early 2000's, I recall, and that some NCO students (aliupseerioppilas) had a chance to fire the KP as part of their training.

Gladius
Winchester Riot Dagger
MP5
M9
AK-47

I've always had an interest in WWII era weapons and vehicles. I'd love to one day own a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1A1_Thompson and a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_1911. I find tanks from the era very interesting too, the Germans had some nice kit. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I was a seriously impressive and intimidating weapon in it's day.

MG42. One of the most effective weapons ever. Its use was so important that blitzkrieg tactics revolved around it very highly, in terms of infantry tactics. It was a very fearsome, very reliable (if somewhat hot running, which was part of its weakness. Just wait for the barrel to overheat and they'll have to change it out. While they do so, rush their position), especially compared to crap like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauchat. Dear lord, I can only imagine what it was like to use a piece of trash like that.

Any Kalashnikov from the AK47 to the AK102
PPSH-41 (Russians make kick ass weapons)
MG42 (Germans do to)
ME 262 fighter jet

I was just trying to point out that a full scale nuclear war would have a huge number of deaths.


I didn't think anti-ICBMs were that effective against a lot of MIRV based nuclear weapons?

Someone powerful enough to have a large enough arsenal of good quality (MIRV based) nuclear weapons.




Those weapons weren't exactly powerful. I think the Peacekeeper is about 200 times as powerful as that assuming all the warheads reach their targets


If a war with a nuclear state was going to lead to total war, the other side would be able to launch their own nuclear based weapons.




Anyway. Wars have changed. They don't use nuclear weapons at present. :shrug:

This is why nuclear warheads are a strategic deterrent, as opposed to a tactical weapon.

Oh, I totally agree. You could view the fact that if someone launches a nuclear weapon at your country, then your nuclear weapons have failed.

But again, I don't really think it matters. IHMO the risks are no longer from two nuclear countries going to war.