Posted on 10/01/2006 3:11:02 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The Chinese military allegedly offered an Australian weapons inventor more than $134 million ($US100 million) to go to Beijing and work on one of the deadliest guns in the world, the Nine Network reports.
But Australian and US military forces are said to be determined to ensure the gun, known as Metal Storm and developed in Brisbane, does not end up in enemy hands.
Despite growing trade relations between China and the West, the US still regards the Asian power as an enemy.
Listed on the Australian Stock Exchange, the company Metal Storm Ltd makes a new type of gun which can fire more than a million bullets a minute and can be remotely operated. The only moving parts are the bullets leaving the gun.
The Nine Network says Chinese officials have made several attempts to secure the weapon from the Brisbane company.
In one case, a Chinese-Australian man was on a business trip to Beijing when he was allegedly approached by a Chinese diplomat to secure the gun.
He was offered about $2 million to get hold of the weapon and was told it was for the Chinese military, but after joining the Falun Gong movement, the man decided not to follow up the offer.
Meanwhile, the inventor of the Metal Storm gun, Mike O'Dwyer, said the Chinese military had been pursuing the technology for more than a decade.
Mr O'Dwyer said he was offered more than $US100 million ($134 million) to live in Beijing and help the Chinese military develop the technology.
During a telephone call from a Chinese official, Mr O'Dwyer says he was told the Chinese wanted him to move to Beijing.
Mr O'Dwyer said the official told him, "We don't need any Metal Storm weapons, we don't need any of the paperwork, none of that. What we want is you, and we want you and your family in Beijing".
The official offered him about $US50 million ($67 million) on arrival in Beijing and promised him another $US50 million a year later.
Mr O'Dwyer told the official he was not interested and reported the situation to Australian government officials, who he said were not very receptive.
"I think it's very unlikely the Australian government has understood the significance, persistence, determination of this effort (from the Chinese)," he said.
And Mr O'Dwyer says he has continued to receive numerous requests from Chinese business people.
The Nine Network report said Defence Minister Brendan Nelson had a "lukewarm" interest in the project and referred reporters to the Department of Trade.
However, last week a spokesman for Mr Nelson said even if the report was accurate, Australians had nothing to worry about.
"This will not happen and there are safeguards to prevent it," the spokesman told AAP.
Opposition international security spokesman Kevin Rudd said the government should be taking stronger action.
"I am concerned, when you've got advanced military technologies like this, that you can't just dismiss it as some sort of laughing matter.
"We think when you come to sell military technologies of whatever category (that) this is a matter for national security as well."
'"Bunk.
No one is buying these cracked pots, so he just got himself in the paper.
He has a good publicist."
Seen odd articles & stuff about this; thought it was too wayout to be true or useful.'
The best ideas are often the simplest, but the public response is usually negativet (see cars, trains, nuclear power, microwaves, TV, etc.)
Popular Mechanics to the rescue, once again:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1281426.html
http://www.metalstorm.com/
cheers!
True. Scientists would like to give us a simple equation that will be an answer to existence. When they eventually find it, they’ll marvel at its simplicity.
People dislike innovation because it means change, and comfortable people are scared by change. They worry that it may take away their comforts. This is annoying, especially for inventors, since those very changes nearly always add to people’s comfort, health and safety.
"It also has a lot of potential utility in clearing minefields."
I'm interested in your thought on that. Do you mean as a direct or indirect fire weapon?
To rephrase Trotsky, "You might not be interested in change, but change is interested in you."
Anyways,
Discover Magazine Interview with Newt Gingrich
Oct 2006
Q: You have predicted a fourfold to sevenfold increase in scientific discovery in the next 25 years. What does that mean?
Gingrich: I began thinking of the fact that you have more scientists alive now than in all of previous human history. You have better instrumentation and computation. The scientists are connected by email and cell phone. And they are connected by lisencing to venture capital and royalties -- and to China and India as reserve centers of production. Put all that together and it leads to dramatically more science than we have ever seen before. And if you get a breakthrough in quantum computing then you're in a totally different world. My instinct as a historian is that four is probably right. I used that figure when I spoke to the National Academy of Sciences working group in computation and information, and afterwards the head of the group said to me, "That's too small a number." He said its got to be at least seven. What it means is that if you have a planning committee looking out to 2031, and you're going to have four times as much change, that puts you in position of someone in 1880 trying to imagine 2006. If you are going to have a seven times as much change, that puts you in 1660. And nobody understands that.
The model I have seen involves a Metal Storm weapon loaded with ferrous rounds being used to more or less pound a minefield. The sheer volume of fire woud virtually guarantee the destruction of every mine in the minefield. Then magnets could be used to recover the ferrous rounds, if that's desirable - for example if the purpose is to recover faming land in a place that was previously a warzone.
“That system would never be economical for clearing land mines.”
It’s easy to kick a new idea in its formation. It was easy to say, “Man will never fly!”
Providing proof that man could never fly is more difficult.
“I think you should sit back and do the math as to how much it would cost to clear a one acre field.”
I’ll leave that to Metal Storm, but if you have any inside dope . . .
“The Metal Storm system was outmoded by 1860's artillery using cannister rounds.”
That sounds very familiar. “Who needs automobiles? We have horses!”
You’re comparing tons of equipment, personal, transport and cratered landscapes with a small machine, a handful of people and a little land damage. It’s like comparing a single atomic bomb with forests of ancient trebuchets. Even if they did achieve the same result, consider the differences in size, expense, personnel, damage, etc.
“Newer isn't necessarily better.”
Bullets, barrels and electronics are old hat. What’s new is how they were put together, and that was sheer genius.
“This system requires the barrel to be removed and then returned to the factory for reloading.”
New ideas have teething problems but we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
“Would you buy a pistol whose barrel had to removed and then reloaded at the factory? Seriously, this is not a good idea. It's not economically feasible.”
Would you buy an auto-mobile that has to be filled with gas in order to keep going? Seriously, this is not a good idea. It’s not economically feasible. Give me horses any day!
Just as cars and planes no longer require crank starting, and ships no longer need sails, this new technology with outgrow its teething problems. You stick with horses and muskets; I’ll take a jet with smart guns.
Removing the barrel and sending it back to the factory for reloading IS NOT A TEETHING PROBLEM. That's exactly how the system was designed. It can't be reloaded by the owner.
You got that?
Now I'm going to ask you again. Would you but a gun that after shooting had to be send back to the factory just so you could use it again?
{Removing the barrel and sending it back to the factory for reloading IS NOT A TEETHING PROBLEM.}
It is if the process is difficult, since it will eventually be easy. How many gas stations were there when automobiles first hit the road?
“Hell ‘n tarnation, we’re outa gas and there ain’t another gas pump for nigh on two hundred miles. Why’d I ever give up my horse?”
Things get better. We used to crank engines to start them, now we just speak a word.
{That's exactly how the system was designed. It can't be reloaded by the owner.}
Who would want to reload million-bullet barrels? I would gladly let the factory robot do it, thanks. In the same way I take the jet to the airport mechanic for a service, and to the fuel hanger for refuelling. Do I want to refuel her myself, at home, from 44 gallon drums of jet fuel and a hand pump? No thanks. Many things go somewhere to be serviced, refilled or tuned. Inconvenient? That’s life. It will be easier with time, since greater demand creates added drop-off points, deliveries, cheaper costs, etc. Empty chambers will be picked up and dropped off as easily as beer kegs are, behind every hotel, every day. Not a drama.
{Now I'm going to ask you again. Would you but a gun that after shooting had to be send back to the factory just so you could use it again?}
Sure, along with my car for a service, my computer for repairs, my gas cylinders for refilling, my jet for refueling, my robots for de-bugging and my bonsai collection for trimming.
I keep giving away my inventions. The problem is not only do they work but they are so simple anyone could have thought about it.
My real problem is I forget how gullible some people can be. I just have to come up with a system like this metalstorn which is all flash and fury signifying nothing. I could make millions and the system doesn't even have to work. Silly people.
Goldurned idjet automobiles, they'll never come to anything, and nor will those stupid flying contraptions they've come up with. Ask me the world's going to hell in a hand basket. Give me good old horses any day. Latest I heard their gonna building buildings outta steel and glass, without using Roman columns or flying buttresses! Land sakes!
The Metalstorm design is over 100 years old, and no one wanted it back then either.
There are no million-bullet barrels. There aren't even 30 bullet barrels. The 1,000,000 rounds per minute is a rate of fire, not an amount of fire. A typical Metal Storm bank holds in the tens of rounds, but can go into the low hundreds, utilizing a boat-load of barrels.
That's the wrong way to think about it. The barrel is field-replaceable. Think of each barrel as being a cartridge that holds 6-15 rounds (depending on what each round is, simple projectile, grenade, etc.)
Hmmm... they're doing these things a little more openly now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.