4 ms·

Yes, I sometimes wonder what a veteran of the American Revolutionary War thought when he first saw the Gatling gun. What would be unusual is if weapon technolo

Yes, I sometimes wonder what a veteran of the American Revolutionary War thought when he first saw the Gatling gun. What would be unusual is if weapon technology _didn't_ increase exponentially in lethality over time. Given enough time even Little Boy will, to future generations, look to be nearly as puny as a flintlock. Hope we don't do ourselves in.

Dylan16807 13y ago
If you want to bomb a target smaller than a city then you have to design smaller bombs. If you want to target cities then you keep making city-sized bombs. If you want to target larger areas, you're probably going to be most efficient by targeting the cities in that area; go back to the previous step of city-sized bombs. What's the incentive to increase lethality? If you make huge nukes or equivalently powerful weapons, they overkill your target and have negative side effects back on the homeland.
- svachalek 13y ago
  Even sub-city-sized weapons like the ones dropped on Japan are too large to actually launch in the modern world; the political repercussions are much too great. The only use for a nuclear arsenal is to promise Mutually Assured Destruction, and it really doesn't take much for that. The dangerous super-weapons of the future are small, simple ones that can kill just the right person, anywhere, anytime. That arms race is happening right now, and progress is rapid.
hga 13y ago
"Yes, I sometimes wonder what a veteran of the American Revolutionary War thought when he first saw the Gatling gun." Compared to e.g. canister shot from canons I don't think it would have awed them that much (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canister_shot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canister_shot). Since at least the Napoleonic Wars, which followed shortly after our Revolutionary war, artillery has generally been the biggest killer on the battlefield.

Dylan16807 13y ago

If you want to bomb a target smaller than a city then you have to design smaller bombs. If you want to target cities then you keep making city-sized bombs. If you want to target larger areas, you're probably going to be most efficient by targeting the cities in that area; go back to the previous step of city-sized bombs. What's the incentive to increase lethality? If you make huge nukes or equivalently powerful weapons, they overkill your target and have negative side effects back on the homeland.

svachalek 13y ago
Even sub-city-sized weapons like the ones dropped on Japan are too large to actually launch in the modern world; the political repercussions are much too great. The only use for a nuclear arsenal is to promise Mutually Assured Destruction, and it really doesn't take much for that. The dangerous super-weapons of the future are small, simple ones that can kill just the right person, anywhere, anytime. That arms race is happening right now, and progress is rapid.

hga 13y ago

"Yes, I sometimes wonder what a veteran of the American Revolutionary War thought when he first saw the Gatling gun." Compared to e.g. canister shot from canons I don't think it would have awed them that much (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canister_shot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canister_shot). Since at least the Napoleonic Wars, which followed shortly after our Revolutionary war, artillery has generally been the biggest killer on the battlefield.