SF/F Superweapons vs. Skill

[Gatomon41]

In alot of sf shows and stories, one side or the other puts their hopes in quickly ending the war by either devleoping two types of superweapons:
1. A Weapon of Mass Destruction
2. A Superfighter/tank/mecha/ship etc. that is so powerful it's technology could determine the outcome of a war.

Basically, the hope is that the new technology will give an advantage that will quickly end the war. This turns the conflict into a chess match in which whoever has the best superweapons wins the conflict.

However, these days it just feel cheap or silly that a conflict could be won simply because the other side has the best toys. It sends out the wrong message that technmology is the sole determination over how to win battles. It also become rather chilche in plots, and rather monotmous.

Rarely do we see strategic genusis at work, a new Neapolean using common units and tatics to defeat their enimies through wit and skill. It makes a tale more dramatic in the sense that the hero (or enemy) does not rely on fancy tehcnology, but on thinking and what tools are aviable.

Consider MacGuyver, people often would cheer for him when he could break out of jail using a toothopick and chewing gum. Had Picard tried breaking out of jail, he would have just beamed out. Ok, silly analogy :p But the main point is that the story becomes more interesting when the protagonists are hard pressed to do something, with limited resources and facing incrediable odds.

Sf/F shows and other medias could be enhanced greatly by shifting from the Superweapon forumla and on to the plot of a strategist genius that could determine victory. Technology is good, but its rather how one uses it in a long, well crafted plan that are more likely to win a conflict.

What do you guys think? Is my hypothesis valid? Or are there ciritcisms of why it won't work? Any other thoughts?

[Wounded_Dragon]

Shiny new toys are easy to write in. Still, what shows are you basing this trend on? I'm a little overdosed on Babylon 5 to think of any other examples at the moment.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I don't know. Maybe in Japanese stuff, where all you have to do to win is transform or light blazing sword or something. I agree that it makes a more compelling story, but think in American SF and Sci-Fi the ragtag bunch of technologically less advanced but better led rebels or underdog group often has a compelling advantage. Look at Star Wars, in the first one Luke beats the death star with his religion and in the Jedi the super high tech troopers are routed by teddy bears with rocks and sticks. The Borg have better technology than the Enterprise but always get their asses kicked. Humans learn to control the advanced Matrix. In Battlefield Earth what are basically cavemen start flying jets and beat back aliens. In Independence day human jet pilots and a Mac notebook take out a huge alien fleet. In fact, although they cut it because it was too silly the original weapon that destroyed the alien mothership was supposed to be a kamikaze crop dusting plane.

As for strategy, that's the way Captain Kirk often wins. There was one episode where he put the Enterprise in sort of a silent running mode to fool an attacking ship into thinking it was disabled. It was great because a spy from that ship was on board and you could see the horror in his face when he realized how badly Kirk had outmanuevered them. Then Kirk killed everyone on board the other ship by blowing it up with a torpedo. And remember in Star Trek VI how they rigged a torpedo to track a cloaked ship's ion trail. Superweapon versus strategy where superweapon loses.

But in the other cases, one reason for stories that focus on a really cool superweapon is that because those usually only have a small crew. It's just harder to do stories about whole armies and their movements, and easier to do a story about a brave crew who fly an experimental fighter into the abyss.

By the way, in real life technology does win battles. Whoever is the first to take the important technological leap almost always wins. Think about the calvary men who died before the first machine guns, the people who were slaughtered by superior iron weapons, the guy who was first impaled on a spear by a smaller, weaker guy, heck, the first proto man who was clobbered by another with a rock. American soldiers are probably killing less advanced Iraqis and Afghan's right now. We do it easily, we have tanks that kill 20 to one of theirs, bombs they can't hope to comprehend, carriers that can defend against hundreds of targets at once and soldiers equipped with high tech gear that would have seemed like something out of science fiction just a couple of decades ago.

[Anyone00]

Well it's the technology of peace: Peace through power.

:p

[Gatomon41]

By the way, in real life technology does win battles. Whoever is the first to take the important technological leap almost always wins. Think about the calvary men who died before the first machine guns, the people who were slaughtered by superior iron weapons, the guy who was first impaled on a spear by a smaller, weaker guy, heck, the first proto man who was clobbered by another with a rock. American soldiers are probably killing less advanced Iraqis and Afghan's right now. We do it easily, we have tanks that kill 20 to one of theirs, bombs they can't hope to comprehend, carriers that can defend against hundreds of targets at once and soldiers equipped with high tech gear that would have seemed like something out of science fiction just a couple of decades ago.
Technological developments can determine new tools of war that leads to victory. But it still takes intellect to apply it in warfare. World War I had tons of innovations, but it was poor foresight by military commanders that still led to the large amounts of deaths.


Well it's the technology of peace: Peace through power.

:p

LOL! :)

___