4 ms·

> A weapon is a weapon even before it is used in anger. Only if you use an incredibly loose definition of 'weapon'. I suppose you think hammers, shoestrings, p

> A weapon is a weapon even before it is used in anger. Only if you use an incredibly loose definition of 'weapon'. I suppose you think hammers, shoestrings, pebbles, carrots, and and a rotting fish are all weapons too, since they could cause damage if used in anger?

dragonwriter 8y ago
> > A weapon is a weapon even before it is used in anger. > Only if you use an incredibly loose definition of 'weapon'. No, by the standard definition. A gun is a weapon even before you shoot someone with it, it doesn't transform from a non-weapon to a weapon when that happens.
- lettergram 8y ago
  Based on the standard definition of weapon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon A firearm is not a weapon it is an armament. An armament only becomes a weapon when it is used to inflict harm.
  - jfk13 8y ago
    I don't think that matches the common understanding of "weapon" in English. A sword, spear, gun, etc., is considered a weapon whether or not it is actually used. An object not normally regarded as a weapon -- a walking-stick, perhaps, or a kitchen knife -- might become a weapon by virtue of its use as one. But military arms are inherently weapons, whether in use or not.
  - guelo 8y ago
    That's not what the link you posted says.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Your link starts with: "A weapon, arm or armament is any device that can be used with intent to inflict damage or harm." Which is means a bat is a weapon even if it's never used in anger.
  - nategri 8y ago
    peak hacker news
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Posting a link that directly contradicts your argument is not an effective means of supporting it. Well, it can be if your audience doesn't actually follow the link, but that trick is more effective with references in hardcopy where there is non-trivial effort involved in checking references.
- losteric 8y ago
  So we're all perpetually carrying around weapons, by virtue of having hands/legs/clothing/cellphone batteries/bags/etc?
  - ema 8y ago
    In a sense, yes absolutely. OTOH in another sense this is clearly ridiculous. I suspect this ambiguity is irreducible.
    - andrewflnr 8y ago
      Whether something "is a weapon" is about the intent of the maker or the wielder.
  - excalibur 8y ago
    Fun little tangent: https://www.quora.com/Do-martial-artists-have-to-register-their-hands-and-feet-as-weapons https://www.quora.com/Do-martial-artists-have-to-register-th...
jerf 8y ago
"Only if you use an incredibly loose definition of 'weapon'." You're looking at things through the lens of a ground-dweller, where by default, all high-energy events diffuse their energy through the environment in a matter of moments. Even nuclear explosions or asteroid impacts will diffuse in relatively short periods of time. Thus, it is an exception to encounter a configuration of matter that can deliver the sort of concentrated energy and/or mass meant to hurt somebody, and we can assume that they are deliberately created by an intelligence, place such exceptional objects into exceptional cognitive categories and create special laws for them, and so on. In space, there is no such energy diffusion. Anything put into orbit is going much faster than all but the fastest bullets and are much larger to boot, and thus put any firearms you've ever seen to shame. If it's in orbit, and it's still useful which implies it has the ability to maneuver, it's a weapon. It may also be other things, but it is certainly a weapon; everything could be used at the very least to threaten something else. (Think chess here; even threats have real impact.) Even if you can't agree with that, it doesn't matter, because everybody involved with space does and will continue to act accordingly. (The signed agreements not to militarize space are quite pointless, really, and I doubt there's a single signatory to any such agreement that is actually abiding by it even if we stipulate for the sake of argument that a "mere satellite" isn't a weapon despite the manifest untruth of such a stipulation.)
- unholythree 8y ago
  I think this comment is being downvoted unreasonably. Regardless of the (im-)morality of weaponizing space I'm fairly certain the only binding treaty signed by the space powers addressing weapons in space was The Outer Space Treaty of '66. That only banned nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. As far as the definition of weapon; popular opinion isn't germain if we're discussing a legal matter, only the legal definition and how loose it might be. In the past few decades the US, Russia, and China have all shot down a satellite with missles from Earth, and generated more space junk in the process I might add. If that didn't run afoul of a treaty I don't see how this project could.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> > A weapon is a weapon even before it is used in anger. > Only if you use an incredibly loose definition of 'weapon'. No, by the standard definition. A gun is a weapon even before you shoot someone with it, it doesn't transform from a non-weapon to a weapon when that happens.

lettergram 8y ago
Based on the standard definition of weapon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon A firearm is not a weapon it is an armament. An armament only becomes a weapon when it is used to inflict harm.
- jfk13 8y ago
  I don't think that matches the common understanding of "weapon" in English. A sword, spear, gun, etc., is considered a weapon whether or not it is actually used. An object not normally regarded as a weapon -- a walking-stick, perhaps, or a kitchen knife -- might become a weapon by virtue of its use as one. But military arms are inherently weapons, whether in use or not.
- guelo 8y ago
  That's not what the link you posted says.
- Retric 8y ago
  Your link starts with: "A weapon, arm or armament is any device that can be used with intent to inflict damage or harm." Which is means a bat is a weapon even if it's never used in anger.
- nategri 8y ago
  peak hacker news
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  Posting a link that directly contradicts your argument is not an effective means of supporting it. Well, it can be if your audience doesn't actually follow the link, but that trick is more effective with references in hardcopy where there is non-trivial effort involved in checking references.
losteric 8y ago
So we're all perpetually carrying around weapons, by virtue of having hands/legs/clothing/cellphone batteries/bags/etc?
- ema 8y ago
  In a sense, yes absolutely. OTOH in another sense this is clearly ridiculous. I suspect this ambiguity is irreducible.
  - andrewflnr 8y ago
    Whether something "is a weapon" is about the intent of the maker or the wielder.
- excalibur 8y ago
  Fun little tangent: https://www.quora.com/Do-martial-artists-have-to-register-their-hands-and-feet-as-weapons https://www.quora.com/Do-martial-artists-have-to-register-th...

jerf 8y ago

"Only if you use an incredibly loose definition of 'weapon'." You're looking at things through the lens of a ground-dweller, where by default, all high-energy events diffuse their energy through the environment in a matter of moments. Even nuclear explosions or asteroid impacts will diffuse in relatively short periods of time. Thus, it is an exception to encounter a configuration of matter that can deliver the sort of concentrated energy and/or mass meant to hurt somebody, and we can assume that they are deliberately created by an intelligence, place such exceptional objects into exceptional cognitive categories and create special laws for them, and so on. In space, there is no such energy diffusion. Anything put into orbit is going much faster than all but the fastest bullets and are much larger to boot, and thus put any firearms you've ever seen to shame. If it's in orbit, and it's still useful which implies it has the ability to maneuver, it's a weapon. It may also be other things, but it is certainly a weapon; everything could be used at the very least to threaten something else. (Think chess here; even threats have real impact.) Even if you can't agree with that, it doesn't matter, because everybody involved with space does and will continue to act accordingly. (The signed agreements not to militarize space are quite pointless, really, and I doubt there's a single signatory to any such agreement that is actually abiding by it even if we stipulate for the sake of argument that a "mere satellite" isn't a weapon despite the manifest untruth of such a stipulation.)

unholythree 8y ago
I think this comment is being downvoted unreasonably. Regardless of the (im-)morality of weaponizing space I'm fairly certain the only binding treaty signed by the space powers addressing weapons in space was The Outer Space Treaty of '66. That only banned nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. As far as the definition of weapon; popular opinion isn't germain if we're discussing a legal matter, only the legal definition and how loose it might be. In the past few decades the US, Russia, and China have all shot down a satellite with missles from Earth, and generated more space junk in the process I might add. If that didn't run afoul of a treaty I don't see how this project could.