6 ms·

We walked back from chem/bio to a great degree, but only really because we had something bigger/better (nuclear). A bunch of relatively useless things (blindin

by rdl 9y ago

We walked back from chem/bio to a great degree, but only really because we had something bigger/better (nuclear). A bunch of relatively useless things (blinding lasers, stuff like that) have been eliminated/banned, but again mainly because they're not militarily particularly useful.

chopin 9y ago
I believe that, unfortunately, only weapons with little military use are banned. Take, for instance, chemical weapons. These are pretty much useless in modern (highly mobile) warfare. Take another example, mines. There is a treaty on banning them but it has not been ratified by the worst actors [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Ottawa_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Ottawa_...
- greedo 9y ago
  Mines are extremely useful in modern warfare. The ability to shape an opponents maneuverability is critical. Mines (especially stuff like DPICM) allow defenses to attrit attackers.
cavanasm 9y ago
They were banned for being inhumane, not not militarily useful. The international community doesn't like the idea of military actors running around with weapons that permanently cripple but don't kill; landmines are probably a better example of a banned weapon than blinding lasers. They're highly effective military weapons, but frequently leave victims alive and in need of critical medical care, and then support for the rest of their lives; incredibly terrifying and demoralizing from a psychological perspective. Countries that care about their soldiers don't want their soldiers to worry about that. The blinding lasers are similar: how many volunteers could the US get if there was a high risk of "merely" being permanently blinded, and then discharged?
- rdl 9y ago
  Landmines are only banned due to lingering civilian effects; as long as you mark the fields and remove them, or have self-destruct tech, they're fine.

by rdl 9y ago

chopin 9y ago

I believe that, unfortunately, only weapons with little military use are banned. Take, for instance, chemical weapons. These are pretty much useless in modern (highly mobile) warfare. Take another example, mines. There is a treaty on banning them but it has not been ratified by the worst actors [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Ottawa_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Ottawa_...

greedo 9y ago
Mines are extremely useful in modern warfare. The ability to shape an opponents maneuverability is critical. Mines (especially stuff like DPICM) allow defenses to attrit attackers.

cavanasm 9y ago

They were banned for being inhumane, not not militarily useful. The international community doesn't like the idea of military actors running around with weapons that permanently cripple but don't kill; landmines are probably a better example of a banned weapon than blinding lasers. They're highly effective military weapons, but frequently leave victims alive and in need of critical medical care, and then support for the rest of their lives; incredibly terrifying and demoralizing from a psychological perspective. Countries that care about their soldiers don't want their soldiers to worry about that. The blinding lasers are similar: how many volunteers could the US get if there was a high risk of "merely" being permanently blinded, and then discharged?

rdl 9y ago
Landmines are only banned due to lingering civilian effects; as long as you mark the fields and remove them, or have self-destruct tech, they're fine.