Why are people so obsessed with small arms when MWDs are so woefully neglected

Why are people so obsessed with small arms when MWDs are so woefully neglected

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Chemical

    A huge tragedy when they are used, but it's always localized. The casualties are in the hundreds or low thousands. If you are delivering them via missiles you can just intercept them like anything else.

    >biological

    No one has figured out how to not make these suicidal. Releasing a biological agent isn't going to care about national boundaries, and thus will just keep spreading. These will never be used.

    >nuclear

    The only one that matters. It's tightly controlled and monitored. You can't just conjur up nuclear fissible material, as you need to first get a hand of it and then have nuclear power plants to refine it. All of these steps are complicated, and we have agencies that do nothing but monitor nuclear power plants to make sure no one is doing anything shady.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the modern liberal sheep answer
      The truth is we need develop hard counters to all of these and/or make sure we're the only ones who have them.
      >chemical
      Gene mods that counter chemicals as well as equipment to clean huge areas quickly
      >biological
      Gene mods and cleaning equipments same as above.
      >nuclear
      An impenetrable ABM system, a force field shield against all warheads fast and slow, while developing a device that disables nuclear fission reaction within a city-wide radius, in order to counter suitcase bombs.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the plan is, uh, we turn off physics. yeah

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You don't understant physics so you don't think it's possible. The physical laws of our universe can be locally manipulated by importing laws from another universe.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >[citation needed]
            Show me the other universe.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >No one has figured out how to not make these suicidal. Releasing a biological agent isn't going to care about national boundaries, and thus will just keep spreading. These will never be used.
      Are you moronic? Anthrax? Smallpox? Throwing corpses over castle walls with catapults? These were literally the first WMDs ever used, and they're still used occasionally.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Are you moronic?
        NTA, but, are you? In the context of WMDs, it's clear that anon is talking about a biological weapon that would be comparable to the destructive power of a nuclear bomb. Not some meme tier bioweapon that has no effect or has a relatively simple and effective counter.
        >Anthrax?
        Just take Amoxicillin.
        Vaccine
        >Throwing corpses over castle walls with catapults?
        HAZMAT crew.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Also, chemical and biologicals are fricking hard. Especially in a military context. It’s easy to make something that can kill one person ten thousand times over. It’s fairly difficult to make something that can kill ten thousand people once.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Chemical
      Easy to make but only useful in assassinations and executions. To attack a city or an army requires literal tons of deadly and unstable chemicals, and once released they can be easily diluted to ineffective concentrations and possibly neutralized.

      >biological
      Bacterial and fungal weapons are easy to make but easy to treat. Viral weapons require grad students and labs that can edit genes and synthesize proteins. Not the sort of thing just anyone can pull off.

      >nuclear
      >It's tightly controlled and monitored.
      >You can't just conjur up nuclear fissible material
      That's where you're wrong. Natural Uranium is everywhere and the refining process is just a matter of acid washes and some other undergrad level chemistry. Once you have a large amount of soluble uranium you can dissolve it in solution and pump it through a big block of graphite. This is literally what the first breeder reactors were, just a big lump of carbon with fuel stuck inside until some of it transmuted. The real trick is going to be managing the heat and handling everything remotely because the radiation will not just be deadly to anyone not protected by a foot of lead and concrete or a swimming pools worth of water, it will also destroy consumer electronics so any robots used in fuel handling will be short lived. Once you have around 10-15 pounds of Plutonium a simple linear implosion setup is all you need to get a modest fission yield. If you're asking yourself why hasn't Iran done this if it's so simple, they can and either have chosen not to for political and financial reasons or they did it and kept it a secret. They absolutely have the technical skill and raw materials.

      The real reason we don't see terrorist nukes is because the people with the skills and access to the materials and tools to make nukes are happily employed by governments or corporations and make bank while the terrorists that want them lack the skills and resources to make them.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Once you have around 10-15 pounds of Plutonium a simple linear implosion setup is all you need to get a modest fission yield
        Pu-240

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Pu-240
          >Once you have a large amount of soluble uranium you can dissolve it in solution and pump it through a big block of graphite.
          Notice that I mentioned keeping it liquid. This let's you get away with continuous extraction of the Pu-239 before it has a chance to pick up extra neutrons. The other option is going with solid fuel and just pulling it out after about a month of exposure before the ratio gets too high. Everything that you need to make a nuke is public information. Again, no one with the skills wants to be a nuclear terrorist and no wannabe nuclear terrorist has the skills.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The real reason we don't see terrorist nukes is because the people with the skills and access to the materials and tools to make nukes are happily employed by governments or corporations and make bank while the terrorists that want them lack the skills and resources to make them.
        Seems to be a flimsy system hence the need to develop a hard counter ie. my anti-nuclear device

        >the modern liberal sheep answer
        The truth is we need develop hard counters to all of these and/or make sure we're the only ones who have them.
        >chemical
        Gene mods that counter chemicals as well as equipment to clean huge areas quickly
        >biological
        Gene mods and cleaning equipments same as above.
        >nuclear
        An impenetrable ABM system, a force field shield against all warheads fast and slow, while developing a device that disables nuclear fission reaction within a city-wide radius, in order to counter suitcase bombs.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >biological
      >
      >No one has figured out how to not make these suicidal. Releasing a biological agent isn't going to care about national boundaries, and thus will just keep spreading. These will never be used.
      If you wear protection I think you could use anthrax in a self defence situation. Also someone in my country used a syringe to rob multiple casinos. He said he had AIDS blood in it. Seems like a biological weapon to me

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Cause we see small arms everyday and nukes aren't real.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because they're both unobtanium and either overrated or consequences will never be the same tier.
    >BWs
    fairly easy to obtain, overrated, high chance of blowback, consequences will never be the same
    >CWs
    very overrated, mildly difficult to obtain(i dont consider anything less than V series to matter), consequences are moderate
    >nuclear
    Hard to obtain, only mildly overrated, extreme case of consequences will never be the same

    WMDs are like a prototype firearm in a nonexistent caliber that people fanboy over being the greatest thing because practically nobody has real experience with them

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I love meapons of wass destruction

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Chemical weapons are probably the biggest untapped weapon technology. I still find it odd that despite how brutal WW2 was, no major combatants employed chemical weapons (outside of limited use against the Chinese). Especially given how prevalent they were in WW1.
    Though it's my understanding that the British intended to use chemical weapons in the event of a German invasion of the home isles.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I still find it odd that despite how brutal WW2 was, no major combatants employed chemical weapons (outside of limited use against the Chinese). Especially given how prevalent they were in WW1.
      No-one used them in WW2 precisely because they were so horrifying in WW1. It was the original MAD.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Iran-Iraq changed a lot of minds. Iraq was using a shit-ton of chemical weapons against literal Iranians (whose atropine had been rendered inert due to SAD/Mossad spooky business) and still got their shit pushed in during what should have been a push-over invasion.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > no major combatants employed chemical weapons (outside of limited use against the Chinese). Especially given how prevalent they were in WW1.
      That’s exactly why they weren’t used in WWII. Aside from defoliants used in former Indochina, the Iran Iraq war saw the most notable usages of chemical weapons in war. These weapons used in combat against Iran and against civilians (partly) resulted in Iraq forming into a pariah state in the wake of the Iran-Iraq war. Its mass use of chemical weapons in the form of artillery shells and air dropped munitions and the feeble attempts in the continued continued development of WMDs were used a causes belli’s in the tense embargoes and no-fly zones and the eventual 2003 invasion of Iraq by US and some friends.
      The point im trying to make is that using WMDs in combat operations, even if it’s just limited use of chemicals, will greatly aggregate the international community and will be used to justify future actions against you.
      Many soldiers, generals, politicians, statesmen, and intelligentsia during WWII were survivors of WWI. They were disgusted by chemical weapons and other deprived actions from WWI that both sides of WWII never went out of their way to deploy these weapons in the field of battle, regardless of the situations at hand. Sure there were “what if” plans, but nothing ever came to fruition (aside the whole China debacle by the japs).
      Lest we forget that the usage of chemical weapons by one side in a war will immediately justify the other side to deploy such or similar weapons as well.
      mass chemical attacks on a World War Two scale where strategic bombing, covert operations, mass naval operations, and a serious of loose alliances and petrified neutral nations would be a whole mess that neither side wanted to deal with.
      Imagine the eastern front, the pacific theater, D-Day, North Africa, US bombing campaigns, the Battle of Berlin, the Blitz, and more with mutual WMD exchanges.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >continued development of WMDs were used a causes belli’s
        Nice try, Condoleeza. Iraq got the greenlight to use chemical weapons by the US. After all, Iran is enemy numbah 1. Iraq never had the ability to make nukes. The US invaded Iraq due to Bush Jr. having daddy issues.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > Iraq never had the ability to make nukes.
          They were a couple years away from nukes in 1991. But it was a matter of time, not capability

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In the state of Florida, it's apparently a worse crime/more heavily punished on a state level to do a B&E than it is to deploy a WMD. Or MWD, as it were.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The only hypothetically safe biological weapon would essentially be one that only hurt specific races or ethnicities, and even then those are just one mutation away from killing everyone else too

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *