3 ms·

Ask HN: Could EMP weapons eliminate all war deaths?

1 points by amichail 5y ago

Maybe any death in war would be considered a war crime if only EMP weapons are allowed?

detaro 5y ago
Even easier, we could solve wars by the leaders of the fighting countries doing a few rounds of "Rock paper scissors". This also has the benefit that it doesn't involve nuclear weapons, which militarily effective EMPs do.
eternityforest 5y ago
Unless civillian targets got hit. EMPs kill people and send others into general poverty. Not only that they have a pattern that would disgust many people. Your high school bully? He's fine. Old folks with pacemakers and babies in incubators? Possibly dead. It's a bit of a stereotype, but I don't think I'd want a world ruled by the kinds of people who seem to be least tech dependent. We would get some real life Kaczynski type stuff happening. There would be riots. Riots are chaos. As per Taleb, chaos seems to be good for those who are already in the strongest positions, so it would be a pretty regressive system. If it was limited to just military targets that would be a lot better. But I don't think the kinds of people who like useless wars would sign that treaty.
WJW 5y ago
How will you stop the countries on the losing side of an EMP war escalating back up to stuff that kills people?
- verdverm 5y ago
  Why is there a belief that EMPs would not cause death directly? Moving vehicles stop working, hospital systems go down, nuclear facilities systems stopped, famine, the list goes on.
  - WJW 5y ago
    Rubber bullets are "nonlethal" but not from point blank range and/or when they hit you in just the wrong spots. The amount of people directly killed by the average EMP will almost always be much lower than the same amount of energy pumped into fragmentation and/or thermal effects. In any case, I took the question to be more of a "should we mandate nonlethal weapons for wars", not really a question about whether EMPs are nonlethal or not in the strict sense. The point is that countries (especially the type of country already willing to start offensive wars) would be unwilling to honor the outcome of the non-lethal conflict and fall back on more traditional ways of getting what they want. I'd even argue that in many cases, the wars get started exactly because diplomacy, politics, covert operation and economic influence have failed to achieve the desired effect and more direct means are required.
missedthecue 5y ago
The purpose of war is to achieve a political objective through maximum necessary force in the field. I don't see how deploying EMPs would decide any war in recent memory, including the current one in Ukraine.

1 points by amichail 5y ago

Maybe any death in war would be considered a war crime if only EMP weapons are allowed?

Even easier, we could solve wars by the leaders of the fighting countries doing a few rounds of "Rock paper scissors". This also has the benefit that it doesn't involve nuclear weapons, which militarily effective EMPs do.

eternityforest 5y ago

Unless civillian targets got hit. EMPs kill people and send others into general poverty. Not only that they have a pattern that would disgust many people. Your high school bully? He's fine. Old folks with pacemakers and babies in incubators? Possibly dead. It's a bit of a stereotype, but I don't think I'd want a world ruled by the kinds of people who seem to be least tech dependent. We would get some real life Kaczynski type stuff happening. There would be riots. Riots are chaos. As per Taleb, chaos seems to be good for those who are already in the strongest positions, so it would be a pretty regressive system. If it was limited to just military targets that would be a lot better. But I don't think the kinds of people who like useless wars would sign that treaty.

WJW 5y ago

How will you stop the countries on the losing side of an EMP war escalating back up to stuff that kills people?

verdverm 5y ago
Why is there a belief that EMPs would not cause death directly? Moving vehicles stop working, hospital systems go down, nuclear facilities systems stopped, famine, the list goes on.
- WJW 5y ago
  Rubber bullets are "nonlethal" but not from point blank range and/or when they hit you in just the wrong spots. The amount of people directly killed by the average EMP will almost always be much lower than the same amount of energy pumped into fragmentation and/or thermal effects. In any case, I took the question to be more of a "should we mandate nonlethal weapons for wars", not really a question about whether EMPs are nonlethal or not in the strict sense. The point is that countries (especially the type of country already willing to start offensive wars) would be unwilling to honor the outcome of the non-lethal conflict and fall back on more traditional ways of getting what they want. I'd even argue that in many cases, the wars get started exactly because diplomacy, politics, covert operation and economic influence have failed to achieve the desired effect and more direct means are required.

missedthecue 5y ago

The purpose of war is to achieve a political objective through maximum necessary force in the field. I don't see how deploying EMPs would decide any war in recent memory, including the current one in Ukraine.