Sorry folks, got caught up with the moment and misnamed the system:

Metalstorm, accoring to Ms Fish, is capable of firing a million rounds a minute. The difficulty is that it runs foul of Newtonian physics, in that one million rounds a minute provides for massive recoil, so either the projectiles are tiny, or are of very low velocity, or are a very short burst. It would be feasible to create 'shotgun' ammunition capable of being fired from standard rotary gattling type weapons, such as the Vulcan cannon, to produce half a million projectiles per minute, but there is no military effectiveness in doing this.

Metalstorm uses a series of projectiles and propellant already loaded into barrels, which can of course be clustered together. Each barrel does not have 'traditional ammunition feed, ejection system, breech opening or any other moving parts' however, once each barrel has been expended it has to be replaced. In effect each barrel is like a gun's magazine that must be replaced when empty. This replacement process will take time, which will reduce the average number of rounds per minute capable of being fired to around the same number as those capable of being fired from a 'traditional' automatic weapon.

Metalstorm fires lots of small projectiles at a high rate of fire from a weapon of a certain weight. Another weapon, of the same weight, may fire one projectile weighing the same as all those little Firestorm projectiles put together, and may have a greater effect on the target. The weight of projectile and the amount of propellant will be the same, except the larger projectile may be better at penetrating an armoured target or carrying a load of high explosive than Metalstorm will ever be capable of.

Being hit by one or two bullets results in same military effectiveness as being hit by 100, or 1000, or the proverbial million.

Hamlet Wrote
"Being hit by one or two bullets results in same military effectiveness as being hit by 100, or 1000, or the proverbial million."

I agree...
1, 2 bullets or 100 to a 1000....
it has the same basic effect... DEATH

What a shame that when O'Dwyer took his initial invention to the Australian Department of Defence, no one there thought it of any value. I am of the belief that O'Dwyer wanted to keep the design in Australia with the Australian Government holding Metal Storm closely against any further international use. I am further of the belief that the weaponry was principally for defence use, such as on Naval ships as a counter to incoming missiles.
That the Depence Department in saying it was not interested is tantamount to absolute failure, and all O'Dwyer wanted was some seed money, a miniscule amount, for further development.
That the Department pushed him in the direction of the US Department of Defence is almost traitorous, even though Australia has a close working, too close, relationship with the US.
What was in tended as a defensive weapon has now gone on the Offense.
Hugh

Re -[Deleted for being inappropiate language]I implied that right wingers like myself had parents that weren't married.The word "bastard"in the Aussie vernacular is often used as a term of endearment.

If it has offended anyone ,I apologise.Sometimes unwarranted censorship can be used as a tool to discredit opinions averse to our own.

The author may be somewhat inaccurate in the technological capabilities of this new type of weaponry, but the article does bring into focus what are the moral or legal weapons that can be used within a military conflict, and what aren’t, and how likely are those weapons to cause civilian deaths.

There are various Gunships that have been used within recent wars that basically send down a hail of lead, often covering a wide area (ie “area saturation”) An example is the AC-130 Gunships used within Iraq and Afghanistan. http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=71

Within Iraq there have also been reports of Cluster Bombs being dropped on civilian areas, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,929368,00.html, as well as the use of a form of Napalm http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20030805-9999_1n5bomb.html

In other wars there have also been the wide scale use of landmines, but such weaponry becomes indiscriminate and can kill civilians as well as soldiers. Indeed in most wars, civilian causalities are normally much higher than causalities to armed forces. The Iraq war is no exception, with estimates of up to 20,000 Iraq civilians being killed directly because of the war, and estimates of up to 100,000 civilians dieing because of indirect consequences.

It was initially said (or implied) that this Iraq war was going to be a war using high precession weaponry with minimal “collateral damage”, but that is not how most wars eventually turn out.

It appears that no matter what type of weaponry is used, it does not greatly reduce civilian causalities, particularly if that war deteriorates into a guerrilla type war that is fought within civilian areas.

"but the article does bring into focus what are the moral or legal weapons that can be used within a military conflict"

Timkins has raised a very good point which was probably the point of the article (not sure, not the best written article).

Anyway what is military morality? Is this an oxymoron? Weapons of least destruction? As Timkins says no matter what is used - innocents are murdered.

Should Australia be a party to the development of such weaponry? I don't believe we have a choice any more. Now that we are a part of the coalition of the Killing we are in it to the bitter end. The capitalistic minded should support the opportunity to make a quick buck out of the situation.