Why wasn't explosive ammunition a staple of the federation?
In fact, it probably wasn't even though of.
In the movie, they have no explosive bullets... because the entire movie is satire about the military-industrial complex and is mocking militarism.
This is also why everyone constantly underestimates the Bugs and why everyone is so stupid.
i love how the film starship troopers was pretty much perfectly calibrated to annoy people who liked the book
i love how the film starship troopers was pretty much perfectly calibrated to annoy people who liked the book
It was a movie...
...of a different calibre
YEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Eh? Eh? Ehhhhhhhhh?
(Because the conversation is about ammunition? And ammunition is distinguished by calibres? Eh? Ehhhh?)
i love how the film starship troopers was pretty much perfectly calibrated to annoy people who liked the bookI liked the book because it presents a (very utopian) facsist society that was interesting precisely because it wasn't "lol Nazis" or "lol Communists".
An intelligent critique of the book might have actually tried to show how poorly the book's society would work in the real world.Would anyone actually want to see that movie? I think doing a critique of this totally fanciful political system in space would be pretty much audience poison, especially if you're gonna call it Starship Troopers. The goal (and the only reasonable goal if your movie is named Starship Troopers) was to make a popcorn blockbuster. They found a blockbuster guy who had first hand experience with fascism to direct, and he thought the book was really stupid and made the movie he wanted. This is an awesome way to make a film, and IMO the wonderfully vacant splatterfest that resulted was way better than any serious movie treatment of the material could hope to be, whether it argued for or against the "source" book.
Would anyone actually want to see that movie? I think doing a critique of this totally fanciful political system in space would be pretty much audience poison, especially if you're gonna call it Starship Troopers. The goal (and the only reasonable goal if your movie is named Starship Troopers) was to make a popcorn blockbuster. They found a blockbuster guy who had first hand experience with fascism to direct, and he thought the book was really stupid and made the movie he wanted. This is an awesome way to make a film, and IMO the wonderfully vacant splatterfest that resulted was way better than any serious movie treatment of the material could hope to be, whether it argued for or against the "source" book.Why call it Starship Troopers at all, then? The movie has nothing in common with the book except the name of the protagonist. It doesn't challenge the book's ideas in an intelligent way, it doesn't have the same plot, it doesn't have power armor (arguably the book's biggest contribution to SF). If the two didn't have the same name, I don't think anyone would have made the connection between them.
Would anyone actually want to see that movie? I think doing a critique of this totally fanciful political system in space would be pretty much audience poison, especially if you're gonna call it Starship Troopers. The goal (and the only reasonable goal if your movie is named Starship Troopers) was to make a popcorn blockbuster. They found a blockbuster guy who had first hand experience with fascism to direct, and he thought the book was really stupid and made the movie he wanted. This is an awesome way to make a film, and IMO the wonderfully vacant splatterfest that resulted was way better than any serious movie treatment of the material could hope to be, whether it argued for or against the "source" book.Why call it Starship Troopers at all, then? The movie has nothing in common with the book except the name of the protagonist. It doesn't challenge the book's ideas in an intelligent way, it doesn't have the same plot, it doesn't have power armor (arguably the book's biggest contribution to SF). If the two didn't have the same name, I don't think anyone would have made the connection between them.
Hell, I'd be prepared to say WH40k presents more intelligent and pertinent criticism of Starship Troopers' ideas than the movie does. And that's saying a lot.
Did you just answer your own question? Yes, I think you did.I certainly did. It doesn't matter of in the context of the making of the movie or the story either. It really didn't seem to be something that was thought of to be using explosive ammo.
Was explosive ammo in small arms even an established thing when the book was written?Yes, it was known it's possible by then. Not only that, it was already banned. :)
What's hilarious is the fact that the Security Council is known to just outright ignore the bansthere's a difference between "spew fiery doom which may or may not splatter the target" and "disintegrate and pelt everything nearby with shrapnel of the target"
Dragon's Breath anyone? :D
Geneva convention on human rights. Laws of armed conflict of which every NATO soldier is schooled in state that you must inflict no unnecessary suffering in not so many words.thank you, my knowledge is very thin in that whole area
Geneva convention on human rights. Laws of armed conflict of which every NATO soldier is schooled in state that you must inflict no unnecessary suffering in not so many words.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions)
[Geneva Conventions] do not address warfare proper—the use of weapons of war—which is the subject of the Hague Conventions (...)