I wish nuclear weapons did not exist

[shoshi]

But they do and I can't turn back time. At the least it should not have been allowed to develop beyond the atomic bomb. What do you think?

 

[Road Runner]

Although I mostly believe that anybody can buy any kinds of weapons they want as long as they do background checks, I actually agree with you on this one.

 

[Mushroom]

But they do and I can't turn back time. At the least it should not have been allowed to develop beyond the atomic bomb. What do you think?

Nobody sane wants them, especially those that have had to work around them.

But they are a fact, so we have to do the best we can. And short of universal disarmament (which would never work), the best we can hope for is MAD and eventual reductions to a realistic level. Which is why so many are worried about the push China has been making in increasing their numbers. Which will ultimately only serve to cause the other two major nuclear powers to increase their numbers to compensate.

 

[BackAgain]

The ability to kill an enemy improved when they went from rocks to swords. Guns proved more effective than long bows. Bombs made a Big Bang in the slaughter department, but dropping them from planes eventually made them more effective. Guided missiles and drones upped the tally for the non nuclear panoply of weaponry.

Atomic bombs and nuclear weaponry seems to be the extraordinarily ultimate weapon. But we probably thought much the same about swords over rocks. I wonder what kind of slaughter machinery may evolve next?

 

[Mushroom]

Guns proved more effective than long bows.

OK, here I am going to nitpick a bit, but that is not quite right.

First, use "bow", as "long bow" was a uniquely English weapon. It would be like using "Katana" instead of "Sword" in such a statement.

But bows were used very effectively until around the middle of the 19th century. That is mostly because of the rate of fire of guns until the early paper cartridges were developed. Guns came to Europe by the 14th century, but even the English were using their long bow units in battle until late in the 17th century. And at about that time the French and others started to mass muskets into huge formations and use volley fire, which could offset the speed advantage of the bow over muskets.

But the single biggest advantage of guns over bows is the length of time to train one to use them. A week or less was sufficient to train a musketman. It took years to train even a low quality bowman, and a lifetime of constant practice for them to master the skills.

 

[BackAgain]

OK, here I am going to nitpick a bit, but that is not quite right.

First, use "bow", as "long bow" was a uniquely English weapon. It would be like using "Katana" instead of "Sword" in such a statement.

But bows were used very effectively until around the middle of the 19th century. That is mostly because of the rate of fire of guns until the early paper cartridges were developed. Guns came to Europe by the 14th century, but even the English were using their long bow units in battle until late in the 17th century. And at about that time the French and others started to mass muskets into huge formations and use volley fire, which could offset the speed advantage of the bow over muskets.

But the single biggest advantage of guns over bows is the length of time to train one to use them. A week or less was sufficient to train a musketman. It took years to train even a low quality bowman, and a lifetime of constant practice for them to master the skills.

Whatever. If your army filled to the brim with trained archers and all manner of long bows or regular bows wants to take on an enemy fully armed with rifles, your strategy and tactics are likely already doomed to failure.

The point has nothing to do with the individual examples. The point is: weaponry got more advanced and lethal over time. And I’m wondering a bit if there is an even more sophisticated “ultimate” weapon down the road.

 

[Likkmee]

Nuclear tkknilogicals is awesome ! Axe Chernobilstan and Fukkyshimmy !

 

[shoshi]

Using the Atom bomb was not easy decision for Truman from what I understand. It was weapon of mass destruction that ended the war quickly but that was the atomic stone age. Now we have long range nuclear missiles and I wish they did not exist.

 

[jbrownson0831]

But they do and I can't turn back time. At the least it should not have been allowed to develop beyond the atomic bomb. What do you think?

I wish we didn't pay for them to exist in Iran.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Although I mostly believe that anybody can buy any kinds of weapons they want as long as they do background checks, I actually agree with you on this one.

Constitutionally speaking, that equates to saying "I believe anybody can say what they want, so long as it's approved by the central government first."


Anyway. Some relevant reading. Emphasis mine...

''The current background check system violates numerous parts of the Bill of Rights. The Ron Paul Institute is correct in its assessment that background checks violate the First and Fifth Amendments because they “compel people to speak [and] provide information about themselves,” and “because you have to provide evidence against yourself in order to [acquire] a gun.”

The Brady System is also unconstitutional on Tenth Amendment grounds because the mandate to provide this information is not one of the federal government’s constitutional functions.

Last but certainly not least, background checks turn the presumption of innocence on its head. Instead of being free to acquire a firearm without government duress, law-abiding citizens are forced to submit records proving their innocence to a faceless bureaucracy. On what planet is this requirement not a violation of the very civil liberties enshrined in our legal tradition?''

Continued - Background Checks Are Unconstitutional, Not ‘Common Sense’

 

[Mushroom]

Whatever. If your army filled to the brim with trained archers and all manner of long bows or regular bows wants to take on an enemy fully armed with rifles, your strategy and tactics are likely already doomed to failure.

Once again, gross oversimplification that is barely even worth talking about. But fine, let me humor you for a moment.

No army until the 20th century ever had a "single weapon". They were mixed of different ones, normally one to offset the other.

But fine, if you have this magical army made up of all musketmen, I will simply throw together an army made up entirely of cavalry. Then sit back and laugh as they eat the liver of the musketmen.

Oh no, that is simply not how it works. And because the Generals were aware of that, they added in units of Pikemen, usually on the flanks to protect the musketmen. So the other side make an adaptation, and replaces some of their cavalry with heavy infantry. Now these units have some pretty good resistance to the muskets of the era, and they simply move towards the enemy. But then the other side sees that, and moves to crossbows, which have enough penetration power to cause problems to heavy infantry.

And want to know how your army with bows defeats an army filled with muskets? Simple, they sit in the defensive and wait for the muskets to come to them. Or they fight when the weather is in their favor.

 

[Unkotare]

If they hadn't been developed we would probably be on WWV by now.

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

They have saved millions of war dead.

 

[Silver Cat]

If they hadn't been developed we would probably be on WWV by now.

It's a moot question. Yes, there were only twenty years between WWI and WWII. But there were almost 100 years between Napoleonic Wars and WWI, forty years between Sevens' year war and Napoleonic wars, 108 years between Thirty Years War and Sevens' year war...

 

[HenryBHough]

Since we're wishing......

I wish we'd just get on with the inevitable nuclear war that causes a mass extinction and fixes all the stuff liberals have been whining about for decades. Funny part is that once all the stuff that's supposedly causing change is eliminated the climate would continue to change at its own pace. But nobody would notice.

 

[BackAgain]

Once again, gross oversimplification that is barely even worth talking about. But fine, let me humor you for a moment.

No army until the 20th century ever had a "single weapon". They were mixed of different ones, normally one to offset the other.

But fine, if you have this magical army made up of all musketmen, I will simply throw together an army made up entirely of cavalry. Then sit back and laugh as they eat the liver of the musketmen.

Oh no, that is simply not how it works. And because the Generals were aware of that, they added in units of Pikemen, usually on the flanks to protect the musketmen. So the other side make an adaptation, and replaces some of their cavalry with heavy infantry. Now these units have some pretty good resistance to the muskets of the era, and they simply move towards the enemy. But then the other side sees that, and moves to crossbows, which have enough penetration power to cause problems to heavy infantry.

And want to know how your army with bows defeats an army filled with muskets? Simple, they sit in the defensive and wait for the muskets to come to them. Or they fight when the weather is in their favor.

Damn. That was quite dull.

 

[Likkmee]

I want all the worlds nukes to go off at once. I have a 55 gallon drum of ivermectin

 

[Stryder50]

The ability to kill an enemy improved when they went from rocks to swords. Guns proved more effective than long bows. Bombs made a Big Bang in the slaughter department, but dropping them from planes eventually made them more effective. Guided missiles and drones upped the tally for the non nuclear panoply of weaponry.

Atomic bombs and nuclear weaponry seems to be the extraordinarily ultimate weapon. But we probably thought much the same about swords over rocks. I wonder what kind of slaughter machinery may evolve next?

There's room for plenty more "ultimate weapon".

A five mile diameter asteroid striking Earth would put rocks back in the mass destruction business. For that matter, so, might a swarm of several in the 1-2 mile diameter range. Consider the sci-fi novel "Footfall";

Footfall - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is also the more refined variation of kinetic energy weapons known as "rods from God".

The terrifying future space weapons - 'rods from God ...​

No Nukes Needed: These 'Rods From God' Could Be Have Been ...​

Images;

rods from god weapon at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wish there weren't novas and supernovas but it seems there have been several in our part of the galaxy. I'm hoping these are not evidence of employment of "Conversion Triggers";
...
The only exception to the general picture of
Telesthetic star faring races as relatively
temperate, pragmatic, and ultimately co-
operative peoples is the Xenophobe
Experience. In their manic incursions into Pan
Sentient space, planting conversion triggers in
stars to murder whole planetary populations,
the Xenophobes severely strained the image
of the Telesthetic as the pacific influence upon
the wilder elements of any race. Seven billion
sentients on Triplet! were incinerated by
induced nova because the crew of their Gate
couldn't believe that the unidentifiable Star
Force Tac-Shifting towards their sun was
capable of such a hideous act.
...

http://johnrauchert.brinkster.net/universe/Star%20Force%20Rational.pdf

 

[whitehall]

The eggheads got away with absolving themselves from responsibility for developing the monstrosity. They branded the Japanese as sub-human and encouraged dropping the Bomb to see what would happen. As they say, "the genie is out of the bottle" but the stigma is on the U.S. for the only use of the Bomb on humans (so far).

 

[HenryBHough]

The eggheads got away with absolving themselves from responsibility for developing the monstrosity. They branded the Japanese as sub-human and encouraged dropping the Bomb to see what would happen. As they say, "the genie is out of the bottle" but the stigma is on the U.S. for the only use of the Bomb on humans (so far).

Nukes time had come. America got them before Nazi Germany but Hitler was closer to having them than is Iran today.

So one must concluded that you're unhappy Hitler didn't get there first.

How about now: Should America dismantle all nukes or maybe donate them to Iran in a gesture of friendship?