My hope for the future, as far as military technology goes, is that as our science gets better, our weapons will become ever more efficient -- and less lethal. After all, if you could easily disable and subdue an enemy without killing him, wouldn't you? It's war without the nightmarish moral quandaries.
At least, that's the theory -- although in practice, it hasn't always worked out that way. (There were more than a few times in Vietnam where American soldiers used tear gas to flush VietCong from tunnels, only to mow them down; the fear is that the result would be similar with weapons like aerosolized Valium [nixed by the Pentagon for moral reasons, if you can believe it] or any of the weapons described below.) I guess it's just like Spiderman says: with really cool weapons comes great responsibility.
The gay bomb
The winner of this year's Ig Nobel prize for ridiculous scientific achievement went to the Wright Laboratory of Ohio, which developed the idea of an aphrodisiac bomb which would inspire "completely distasteful but non-lethal" homosexual behavior, distracting enemy troops with one another. Brilliant, yes, but sadly lacking in specifics -- would the effects be immediate? How quickly would they wear off, if ever? Would it turn already-homosexual troops straight? So many questions, so few answers. (That's the problem with hypothetical weapons.)