Why Choose Melee Weapons in a High-Tech World?

  • Thread starter GladScientist
  • Start date
In summary, using melee weapons like lightsabers can be impractical because they can't always hit their targets, and Jedi are better fighters using laser sticks instead.
  • #1
GladScientist
44
0
In a universe with endgame technology, why would anyone use melee weapons like lightsabers? Every time I try to imagine a character using such a weapon, the thought always occurs "why not fire this from a gun?" Especially when characters can be modified to have flawless accuracy.

And how would a human or alien even stand a chance against machines with more intelligence and designed specifically for killing?

Or do you just have to ignore these things and pretend purity of heart is the real key to victory?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It's just movie .
 
  • #3
When I was younger, I never understood why the Jedi, who were superior fighters both mentally and physically, used laser sticks rather than laser guns. Now, as a young adult, I still don't understand.

And I get that they would deflect the shots, but in the chance that two shots would potentially make contact with a Jedi simultaneously, there is no physical way that they could deflect both shots at the same time, especially if one comes from in front, and the other from behind.

But yeah, sci-fi rarely makes sense. It's something you have to deal with.
 
  • #4
Armor. Power armor. If your ranged weapons can't penetrate the armor, (Or if they can't hit the guy because he moves too quickly for your bigger guns) you may need to resort to fitting your own armor with a melee weapon and crush some cans!

As for Jedi, that's why they call lightsabers elegant weapons, unlike blasters which are 'brutal'. It's just a choice really. The rules of their order make it that way. But I will say lightsabers seem to have a great many more uses than blasters. Burning through bulkheads, deflecting things, chopping lumber, etc.
 
  • #5
There are situations where melee weapons are more practical - close combat, or if you want to use it as a tool to heat/chop/whatever something. It might be reasonable to carry one around. On the other hand, there are combats where a ranged weapon is clearly better - unless you propose some weird ultra-high-tech armor which is immune to all ranged weapons. But then, both sides should fight melee only.
 
  • #6
There are several instances in the films of Jedi being overwhelmed by multiple blaster shots - Jango Fett even pulls the trick off on his own at point blank range. The Jedi use lightsabers because Lucas was a fan of Samurai movies, and because swords are Just Cooler. Glowing energy swords even more so.

Dune had personal shield technology, with a wrinkle that they only stopped high-velocity impacts. A relatively low-speed sword thrust would penetrate, and there were some ultra-low-velocity pistols (maula pistols, I think) that could penetrate but didn't do much damage, so you had to be a very good shot for them to be worth carrying. The other fun bit of shields was that if hit with a lazgun, they went up in a fusion explosion, and so did the shooter. Put together, that made for an environment where up-close-and-personal was the only way to go. Herbert also managed to outlaw AIs and anything that might even begin to look a little bit like a thinking machine. So, while there were super-soldier types (the Fremen, the Sardaukar, Duncan and Gurney), they were never up against never-miss automata.

Peter F. Hamilton's Commonwealth has space-borne weaponry of almost unimaginable power (nova bombs are old news), so ground combat tends not to be army-versus-army but more agent-versus-agent. The agents are usually seriously upgraded, including built-in weapons, shields, computers and jacked-up reflexes, but are very hard to spot. They would generally prefer to get the job done without a fight, so when fights happen it tends to be because they tripped over each other - so all fights are never-miss automata close-in one-on-one. Sometimes a punch is the best way to go, especially if you've got a shield-penetrating energy-dump weapon on the end of your fist.

I think that's all the excuses for melee I can think of...
 
  • #7
In Joe Haldemann's "Forever War" the invention of a "stasis field" - a generated bubble inside of which nothing can move faster than a few metres per second - prompted the reintroduction of melee weapons.
A similar concept to Herbert's personal shields.
 
  • #8
GladScientist said:
In a universe with endgame technology, why would anyone use melee weapons like lightsabers? Every time I try to imagine a character using such a weapon, the thought always occurs "why not fire this from a gun?" Especially when characters can be modified to have flawless accuracy.

And how would a human or alien even stand a chance against machines with more intelligence and designed specifically for killing?

Or do you just have to ignore these things and pretend purity of heart is the real key to victory?


Here's the best response I've ever seen to that question:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
If the weapons are powerful enough that you want to limit their range - if you're in a spacecraft , or a colony, or simply don't want to have a line of destruction from the end of your weapon to the edge of the universe - then melee weapons are practical.

Take the lightsaber, as your original example. Assume you have a wavehandium power source that can provide as much power as needed - if fired as a beam weapon, it puts a burned hole about an inch in diameter in everything that gets in its way. If you're in a space ship, game over - you've killed the bad guy, but you've also vented the atmosphere, so it's a guaranteed Pyrrhic victory. Any part of the ship that wasn't in line with your weapon may be able to seal in their air and survive - but you're toast.

In practical terms, melee weapons are better for the amount of control they offer - miss with a knife or sword and it's not going to impale somebody who's fifty meters further away, but almost in line with your target.
 
  • #10
In the "Dune" series, they have "personal force fields" which will block anything over a certain speed. So you had to use things like a knife or sword, that did not move as fast as a bullet.
 

FAQ: Why Choose Melee Weapons in a High-Tech World?

1. How do melee weapons compare to guns in terms of effectiveness?

Melee weapons are generally less effective than guns in terms of range and speed. However, they can be just as deadly and cause significant damage if used correctly.

2. What are the advantages of using melee weapons over guns?

Melee weapons offer a silent attack, making them useful for stealth missions. They are also lightweight and do not require ammunition, making them ideal for survival situations.

3. Can melee weapons be justified in modern warfare?

Yes, melee weapons still have a place in modern warfare. They can be used for close combat situations where guns may not be practical, such as in tight spaces or when facing an enemy who is wearing body armor.

4. How do you justify using melee weapons for self-defense?

In some situations, using a melee weapon for self-defense may be the only option. For example, if an attacker is close enough to grab or disarm a gun, a melee weapon may be more effective. It also allows for a non-lethal form of self-defense in certain situations.

5. Are there any modern advancements in melee weapons that make them more justifiable?

Yes, there have been advancements in materials and designs of melee weapons that make them more effective and versatile. For example, there are now lightweight and durable tactical tomahawks and multi-tool weapons that serve multiple purposes in combat.

Similar threads

Back
Top