4 ms·

They've been invented, but we're not giving up our current nuclear weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr

by dm2 12y ago

They've been invented, but we're not giving up our current nuclear weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun Thermobaric bombs are non-nuclear but do lots of damage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon These are big enough for most tasks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator http://theaviationist.com/2012/02/12/mop/ http://theaviationist.com/2012/02/12/mop/ Unrelated but cool if you like massive weapons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT5jo7aZzTw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT5jo7aZzTw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-rocket_spacelaunch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-rocket_spacelaunch

oafitupa 12y ago
The railgun isn't quite a WMD though, is it?
- dm2 12y ago
  It's debatable. Fire it at a ship/building and most of the people on that ship/building would die. I don't think many objects could survive being hit by a railgun, is that considered mass destruction? According to US law it would be considered a WMD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Criminal_.28civilian.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Crim... "any device or weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury by causing a malfunction of or destruction of an aircraft or other vehicle that carries humans or of an aircraft or other vehicle whose malfunction or destruction may cause said aircraft or other vehicle to cause death or serious bodily injury to humans who may be within range of the vector in its course of travel or the travel of its debris." "Indictments and convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs, pipe bombs, shoe bombs, and cactus needles coated with a biological toxin have been obtained under 18 USC 2332a."
  - bitJericho 12y ago
    A nuclear weapon can take out an entire city, not just a building, or even a group of buildings.
    - dm2 12y ago
      So could a large enough railgun, or laser, or even a large enough marshmallow could take out an entire city. Or even bats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb WMD doesn't mean take out an entire city though.
      - oafitupa 12y ago
        Of course a "large enough" railgun could be a WMD, but they aren't large enough, so they are not WMD.
    - Shivetya 12y ago
      your payload does not need to be nuclear to take out a city, nor does your payload actually have to do that work if you hit the right target within the city of close enough to it (there are more than enough cities with some very hazardous manufacturer close enough to cause harm )
    - moron4hire 12y ago
      Interestingly, the "Davy Crockett" nuclear rocket had a blast radius in the "building" range, not even quite "city block" range. That's probably why it didn't really catch on. Why use a nuclear weapon when a few, much cheaper mortar rounds would destroy the target just as well and not leave the spot uninhabitable for a long time?
      - mschuster91 12y ago
        Because the "uninhabitable for a long time" part is actually desired. Bomb Russia into the Middle Age and make sure it will never be a threat again basically was what fueled the Cold War. It will be a problem again when Ukraine finally blows up.

by dm2 12y ago

oafitupa 12y ago

The railgun isn't quite a WMD though, is it?

dm2 12y ago
It's debatable. Fire it at a ship/building and most of the people on that ship/building would die. I don't think many objects could survive being hit by a railgun, is that considered mass destruction? According to US law it would be considered a WMD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Criminal_.28civilian.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Crim... "any device or weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury by causing a malfunction of or destruction of an aircraft or other vehicle that carries humans or of an aircraft or other vehicle whose malfunction or destruction may cause said aircraft or other vehicle to cause death or serious bodily injury to humans who may be within range of the vector in its course of travel or the travel of its debris." "Indictments and convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs, pipe bombs, shoe bombs, and cactus needles coated with a biological toxin have been obtained under 18 USC 2332a."
- bitJericho 12y ago
  A nuclear weapon can take out an entire city, not just a building, or even a group of buildings.
  - dm2 12y ago
    So could a large enough railgun, or laser, or even a large enough marshmallow could take out an entire city. Or even bats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb WMD doesn't mean take out an entire city though.
    - oafitupa 12y ago
      Of course a "large enough" railgun could be a WMD, but they aren't large enough, so they are not WMD.
  - Shivetya 12y ago
    your payload does not need to be nuclear to take out a city, nor does your payload actually have to do that work if you hit the right target within the city of close enough to it (there are more than enough cities with some very hazardous manufacturer close enough to cause harm )
  - moron4hire 12y ago
    Interestingly, the "Davy Crockett" nuclear rocket had a blast radius in the "building" range, not even quite "city block" range. That's probably why it didn't really catch on. Why use a nuclear weapon when a few, much cheaper mortar rounds would destroy the target just as well and not leave the spot uninhabitable for a long time?
    - mschuster91 12y ago
      Because the "uninhabitable for a long time" part is actually desired. Bomb Russia into the Middle Age and make sure it will never be a threat again basically was what fueled the Cold War. It will be a problem again when Ukraine finally blows up.