Do you wish that advanced weaponry had never been created?

Posted by: minnymilerza

Advanced weaponry—anything more complex than a spear

37 Total Votes


20 votes


17 votes
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Stalin_Mario says2015-04-14T20:11:08.3597469-05:00
If advanced weapons, say like a gun, were never invented, then physically weaker people would never have a chance to defend themselves.
The_Inquisitor says2015-04-14T20:11:44.5886878-05:00
What would you mean by "advanced weaponry" do you mean every from guns to WMD or do you mean everything beyond sticks and rocks?
minnymilerza says2015-04-14T20:11:55.0808484-05:00
Stalin—it makes killing easy.
minnymilerza says2015-04-14T20:12:22.2208530-05:00
Inquisitor—please read the description. Lol
Stalin_Mario says2015-04-14T20:14:52.8550296-05:00
Sure it does, but still, my point is still valid, is it not?
minnymilerza says2015-04-14T20:23:43.3696272-05:00
Yes. But the weak person isn't meant to survive. The STRONG one is, so his/her healthy genes can be passed on. The gun messes this up
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-14T20:24:02.5772156-05:00
God made man, samuel colt made them equal.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-14T20:25:12.0839983-05:00
"Yes. But the weak person isn't meant to survive. The STRONG one is, so his/her healthy genes can be passed on. The gun messes this up" If the human race was only made of strong people, we would still be in the stone ages.
minnymilerza says2015-04-14T20:26:40.4646659-05:00
You act like good physical health is a bad thing. These genes should be passed on, shouldn't they?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-14T20:26:48.1168743-05:00
A strong person uses his fist, a smart person uses his brain and makes advance weaponry.
minnymilerza says2015-04-14T20:28:36.4255914-05:00
So advanced weaponry is better than hand to hand combat? Hand to hand combat causes more damage than advanced weaponry?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-14T20:30:08.9630118-05:00
If the human race never had smart people, there would be a lot of misery and a higher likelihood of extinction.
minnymilerza says2015-04-14T20:31:35.3110281-05:00
We're talking about weapons, here
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-14T20:32:31.8528783-05:00
Maybe you don't know, but any technology that basically exist today can be considered a advance weaponry.
minnymilerza says2015-04-14T20:34:06.0472524-05:00
Weapons are designed to inflict bodily harm. That's the literal definition, haha
Forthelulz says2015-04-14T20:34:26.5764576-05:00
Maxim 24: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a big gun.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-14T20:36:44.5090050-05:00
Car, train, airplane, ships, are weapon. Yet our world currently depends on these for keeping us alive.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-14T20:37:22.7594694-05:00
A laser, advance manufacturing technology or weapon?
Vox_Veritas says2015-04-14T20:37:44.9578425-05:00
A bow counts as advanced weaponry, then.
minnymilerza says2015-04-14T20:38:55.7180817-05:00
Joe—none of those were DESIGNED to inflict bodily harm. And no, they don't keep us alive. They make life easy, but they aren't necessary for survival
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-14T20:39:37.7032012-05:00
If I have a car, you have a spear, I wonder how it is going to end?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-14T20:40:27.5202789-05:00
Also they are necessary for a decent part of the world population. Without our food transport system, cites would starve.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-14T20:44:22.9543173-05:00
Also weapon can mean anything used to cause harm. Definition from merriam webster, something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy.
minnymilerza says2015-04-14T20:45:34.8988050-05:00
Fine, a car could be used as a weapon. But it could be argued that isn't the intended purpose, haha
minnymilerza says2015-04-14T20:45:54.9132201-05:00
Not if people grow/hunt their own food
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-14T20:48:13.3137585-05:00
You do know that without advances in agriculture, the earth couldn't support the current population. I hope you like a lot of people starving because you hate advance weapons so much.
minnymilerza says2015-04-14T20:49:37.8013924-05:00
Math—the Earth can't support our current population. There's a reason the environment is a mess and millions are starving
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-14T20:49:47.6774457-05:00
Without advances in agriculture, the earth couldn't support its current population.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-14T20:50:56.7674151-05:00
There would be even more starving if you eliminated current agriculture. And the earth can support the current population with technology.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-14T20:52:25.0390817-05:00
Vertical farming, algae bioreactors, both can support earth future population without much farmland. Both wouldn't exist without advance weapons.
minnymilerza says2015-04-14T20:53:55.7583729-05:00
Math—technology requires natural resources (which are dwindling) to be created
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-14T20:56:19.7436039-05:00
So explain what are these dwindling resources. I bet I could counter any example you give.
58539672 says2015-04-14T20:56:31.6305753-05:00
GPS, the microwave, computers, freeze drying, epipens, duct tape, nuclear power, semiconductors, the telegraph, penicillin and other antibiotics, radar, the jet engine, nylon and other synthetic materials, canned food, the INTERNET, digital cameras, ambulances, modern razors, tampons, nearly all forms of electronics, space shuttles, and so much more would not exist without military funding.
minnymilerza says2015-04-14T21:07:08.3655410-05:00
Math—well, someone's a little pugnacious
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-14T21:08:35.3457718-05:00
"technology requires natural resources (which are dwindling) to be created" I want you to support your claim.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-14T21:09:24.1800243-05:00
You can support you claim, right?
minnymilerza says2015-04-14T21:13:43.0080632-05:00
Math—I'm surprised I need to explain this. Every item you own is composed of something else. For example, most smartphones contain elements such as copper, nickel, zinc, lithium, cadmium and cobalt. These elements are found in nature.
TBR says2015-04-14T21:15:19.3172886-05:00
I have a thing about this. We have advanced on the back of war. Want cool aerospace? Look to the military first. Want cool tech, where do you look? I don;t like it, but it is true.
minnymilerza says2015-04-14T21:15:48.1050717-05:00
No, I agree.
TBR says2015-04-14T21:16:57.0806085-05:00
The crazy high budgets ALL countries have put into war produce MORE useful tech than... Well, much of anything else. The internet is a great example. Never would have happened without the military.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-14T21:17:37.1718375-05:00
"'Im surprised I need to explain this. Every item you own is composed of something else. For example, most smartphones contain elements such as copper, nickel, zinc, lithium, cadmium and cobalt. These elements are found in nature." Easy counter, do you know how much metal is in an asteroid? Future tech, problem solved.
minnymilerza says2015-04-14T21:17:43.1378220-05:00
I'm starting to think...What's the point? This technology doesn't make us happier, just lazier
minnymilerza says2015-04-14T21:18:13.5035388-05:00
Of course, medicine might be an exception. But I think there's lots of natural alternatives
minnymilerza says2015-04-14T21:19:12.1584108-05:00
Math—you seem very eager for an argument. I don't have the energy right now
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-14T21:21:10.0285301-05:00
It depends on the subject, I can't stand people who dis technology that keeps a large amount of the world 'alive'.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-14T21:21:30.5450563-05:00
You kind of hit a nerve in me.
reece says2015-04-14T23:32:51.7158592-05:00
@Itani At the beginning of WW2 big bombs were only about 10 tone block busters.A few years in we had an atomic bomb that released an energy output of 15,000 tones of TNT (that was 1945). 7 years later (1952) we tried something new, a hydrogen bomb, that released energy of 10 million tones of TNT (created a fireball 3 miles wide). (1961) we created one with 57 million tones of TNT equivalent. It's called the Tsar Bomba (Russian) . Do you find it interesting how close together these time frames are? You wouldn't be saying what you've said if the Tsar Bomba dropped in the US.
reece says2015-04-14T23:34:05.4439654-05:00
...On the US..*
Roodvlees says2015-04-15T03:58:44.9480751-05:00
The purpose of weapons is to kill people. Better weapons = more people end up dead. Physically weaker people have always been able to organize and use their intellect to get strong people to defend them.
reece says2015-04-15T04:41:11.4582099-05:00
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-15T06:33:25.5831399-05:00
Reece large nuclear weapons are very inefficient. I wouldn't worry about the tsar bomba being dropped as much as several smaller nukes with the same total amount of energy.
TheHappyReaper says2015-04-15T07:37:12.9997115-05:00
Humanity is physically weak compared to all other top predators. Technology is how humanity survives.
reece says2015-04-15T07:50:27.6811655-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe inefficient how? Are you talking about spreading the small nukes out? Because all you need to do is scare them into submission. You don't need to kill as meany civilians as possible.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-15T07:51:16.0942072-05:00
Big nukes aren't scary.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-15T07:52:13.6344148-05:00
Russia doesn't even use anything as powerful as a tsar bomba anymore because of it is so ineffective.
reece says2015-04-15T07:59:27.5712148-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe Nukes shouldn't even be used in war at all. Russia has something more powerful now with modern technology. When i replied to Itani i wasn't talking about the present.
reece says2015-04-15T08:02:27.6842346-05:00
"Big nukes aren't scary." you wouldn't be saying that once you're dead. You seem like a typical trigger happy american.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-15T08:59:41.1169771-05:00
"Russia has something more powerful now with modern technology. When i replied to Itani i wasn't talking about the present." If you are talking about russia's strongest non-nuclear bomb, I already know about it. I personally rather be attacked by a nuclear weapons than a thermobaric weapon. "Big nukes aren't scary." you wouldn't be saying that once you're dead. You seem like a typical trigger happy american." I wouldn't be saying anything if I was dead. And if I was in a situation where I knew I was going to die from a nuke, I would be equally scared to if I knew I was going to die to a conventional bomb. Big nukes aren't scary, cluster ballistic missiles that carry multiple nukes are far more scary, and they are also far more likely to be used. Which would you be scared or more, seeing one really big boom, or see multiple nukes going off destroying much more? Besides nuclear weapon aren't nearly as scary as somethings.
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2015-04-15T09:31:35.2352976-05:00
@minny: I have to agree with Joe. Remember, advancements in production capacity are dependent on technology. Technology is what allows us to support larger and larger populations. Taking food production as an example, Joe mentioned vertical farming and algae bioreactors. You can see my opinion here: I've explained vertical farming on the left column; Joe explained algae bioreactors on the right. In the future we may be serving 50,000 people with a single tower. In other words, we could feed a town with just a few of these buildings. You cite the ecological deficit, but even the carrying capacity of land can be expanded with technology. Precision agriculture, for example, is a great solution to overcome climatic constraints on farming while preventing salinsation and eutrophication at the same time; in fact, drip irrigation, an example of precision agriculture, is one of the reasons behind Israel's economic prosperity.
reece says2015-04-15T09:59:54.6474919-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe You would rather be attacked by a nuclear weapon than a thermobaric weapon? I think that was a typo in more than one way. But no, i wasn't talking about the ATBIP. I was talking about something like the star wars program. Russia could be working on something very similar. " I wouldn't be saying anything if I was dead." yeah, that's the point. To answer your question; i would only see chaos.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-15T10:17:49.9032064-05:00
Yes, I would rather be attacked by a nuclear weapon instead of a thermobaric weapon. "I was talking about something like the star wars program. Russia could be working on something very similar." The star wars program is very vague description. Do you mean the lasers or the kinetic bombardment or something else?
reece says2015-04-15T18:22:26.1399650-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe Okay well, I wouldn't want to be attacked by any. When i talk about the star wars program i talking about the stuff that is off the books. You know? Unacknowledged special access projects.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.