3 ms·

"resulting controversy is pretty much guaranteed to terminate the program." I'm not aware of any controversy that stopped weapon progress. We have biological w

"resulting controversy is pretty much guaranteed to terminate the program." I'm not aware of any controversy that stopped weapon progress. We have biological weapon research, atomic weapons and the US used chemical agents in Vietnam. The US stopped tactical nuclear weapons because it thought they were not useful, not because of the protests in Europe. SDI was cancelled because laser weapons were not feasable in the 80s, not because of the controversy. There are more mines used in Ukraine than ever before - despite "bans". There is cluster ammunition delivered despite a huge controversy. "clouds or smokescreens." Sure smokescreens can only jam low flying drones? If you smoke a target the drone waits for you running out of smoke rounds.

Incipient 3y ago
Pretty sure "controversy" killed biological weapons and most use of nuclear (thankfully). They're even trying to get rid of certain cluster munitions.
- KingOfCoders 3y ago
  We have enough nuclear weapons to kill off humanity. They have not been used because of fear of retaliation, the number has been reduced because of costs. But the US with it's largest conventional military would benefit from a removal of all nuclear weapons. We'll see if Russia uses a tactical nuke when Ukraine enters Crimea. Biological weapons have been killed because they are hard to be used operationally. You don't want to kill civilians, this creates more resistance (shown in WW2 and Iraq for example), also if you conquer a country you need people to run it. Biological weapons are not that useful.
  - chipsa 3y ago
    Biological weapons also have the distinct problem of control: you can release them, but you can't stop them afterward. So, you need to be able to keep your own people safe from the release, which means expensive vaccinations across your population. And how do you test that your vaccination works? Or that it'll still work after your bioweapon mutates? Bioweapons are useless unless your goal is to kill off everyone.
    - ethbr0 3y ago
      Modern chemical weapons are a better example of a thing we've banned.
      - gpderetta 3y ago
        But they were banned because of the consequences on their extreme use on the battlefield, not because were controversial before use.
  - someweirdperson 3y ago
    > We have enough nuclear weapons to kill off humanity. Humanity yes, mankind I'm not so sure. Earth is huge. There are a lot of humans. Some will survive winter. Some will survive mutations. Some will continue to reproduce.
mcpackieh 3y ago
> The US stopped tactical nuclear weapons because it thought they were not useful, not because of the protests in Europe. This didn't happen... most of America's tactical nuclear weapons were withdrawn when the Cold War ended, but America still has several hundred of them and has continued to upgrade them with new guidance systems. See the B61, specifically the Mod 3, 4, 10 and 12 varients. These are tactical nuclear weapons with 'dial-a-yield' down to 0.3 kilotons. The mod 12 was developed during the 2010s and is in production now.

Incipient 3y ago

Pretty sure "controversy" killed biological weapons and most use of nuclear (thankfully). They're even trying to get rid of certain cluster munitions.

KingOfCoders 3y ago
We have enough nuclear weapons to kill off humanity. They have not been used because of fear of retaliation, the number has been reduced because of costs. But the US with it's largest conventional military would benefit from a removal of all nuclear weapons. We'll see if Russia uses a tactical nuke when Ukraine enters Crimea. Biological weapons have been killed because they are hard to be used operationally. You don't want to kill civilians, this creates more resistance (shown in WW2 and Iraq for example), also if you conquer a country you need people to run it. Biological weapons are not that useful.
- chipsa 3y ago
  Biological weapons also have the distinct problem of control: you can release them, but you can't stop them afterward. So, you need to be able to keep your own people safe from the release, which means expensive vaccinations across your population. And how do you test that your vaccination works? Or that it'll still work after your bioweapon mutates? Bioweapons are useless unless your goal is to kill off everyone.
  - ethbr0 3y ago
    Modern chemical weapons are a better example of a thing we've banned.
    - gpderetta 3y ago
      But they were banned because of the consequences on their extreme use on the battlefield, not because were controversial before use.
- someweirdperson 3y ago
  > We have enough nuclear weapons to kill off humanity. Humanity yes, mankind I'm not so sure. Earth is huge. There are a lot of humans. Some will survive winter. Some will survive mutations. Some will continue to reproduce.

mcpackieh 3y ago

> The US stopped tactical nuclear weapons because it thought they were not useful, not because of the protests in Europe. This didn't happen... most of America's tactical nuclear weapons were withdrawn when the Cold War ended, but America still has several hundred of them and has continued to upgrade them with new guidance systems. See the B61, specifically the Mod 3, 4, 10 and 12 varients. These are tactical nuclear weapons with 'dial-a-yield' down to 0.3 kilotons. The mod 12 was developed during the 2010s and is in production now.