Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Geneva convention and weapons

  1. Apr 13, 2006 #1
    Why not make a gun that shoots bullets that have a rather large core of Rubidium or Cesium with say a thine copper jacket that blows off inflight thusly exposing the Rubidium or Cesium and causing big troubles for the poor guy who it hits. As it would virtually be melting in the air and burning then it hit and be explosive.

    or similar with a core of radioactive material with a jacket that keeps the ammo completely fine for the soldier carrying it around. That when radioactive material hits its a guarenteed kill. Plus probably further damage to others.

    Now im not suggesting that anyone do this. But im just wondering. Why hasnt anyone. People are so worried of chemical attacks and nuclear problems from iran and other. It is portrayed that these people are without morallity and such. But why arent they doing things like this. It would be virtually less problematic for the world. What is it? 3 nukes and we get a nuclear winter from the dust. There really wouldnt be any problems with using these. Maybe the radioactive one.

    So why dont people do this? to expensive to do? Not easy to do? or is it against the geneva convention or something? That any side caught doing such things would be in big trouble.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 13, 2006 #2

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Setting aside legal and moral issues, I don't suppose there's much point. Conventional bullets are designed to immobilise and incapacitate the enemy instantly, and they do a pretty good job of it when they're on target.
     
  4. Apr 13, 2006 #3

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    :rolleyes:

    Radiation is not a 'guaranteed' kill unless it has a high intensity, in which case a soldier using such ammunition would be killed. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    Radiation takes time to damage or kill cells in the body - which in high doses (100s of rads) could be hours or days.

    As brewnog indicated, what exists, works. Unfortunately!

    For every bullet on target - there are lots more that are not. And there is usually a big mess left to contaminate the battlefield. Let's not add more!
     
  5. Apr 13, 2006 #4
    so its not really against any rules its just stupid for the enemy to use such a thing? as it will just slow down their advancement.

    I think ill try to do some sort of google search to see what kind of weapons arent allowed to be used in a war.

    Like perhaps make a bullet that mushrooms when it hits something, but has a very very short life non-presistent neuro-toxin. When it hits even nearby the enemy the neurotoxin spreads for 2-3 seconds and will instantly incapacitate the enemy. but keep them alive and in good health, that you simply need a reverse agent to bring em back to work it up.

    It could virtually make taking prisoners easy as hell. and such a thing could even be used in like civil hostage situations. Instead of like teargas have this come in. Knock everyone out consistently and easily and keep them that way. until the cops have everything and everyone safe.

    Like there is the flash bang. but it only lasts what 10 seconds? im talking permanent incapacitation until another chemical is added in. I think it could be pretty good.
     
  6. Apr 13, 2006 #5

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    We have made it a fairly efficient battlefield munky. The goal is rarely to kill someone for the average soldier. The goal is to put him down so that he can't shoot back at you. That's all you care about, not getting shot at; the soldier's ultimate fate is a non-issue to the average soldier.

    Also, the chemical ideas your talking about are probably incredibly difficult to create if not impossible. I suspect things that work so quickly are of such great potency that it's hard to control their lethality.
     
  7. Apr 13, 2006 #6
    Actually as far as i know. neurotoxins are something that generally does what its meant to regardless of potency. As far as i can tell in my study.

    Like when you look at the bad ones like anthrax and ricen. the lethal dose is TINY; less then 1 milligram. and when your at such a low amount it takes a little while. But you have certain ones like the Botulin toxin. even the smallest lethal potency can be instantly effective.

    Ive been thinking perhaps using a narcotic like HEroin or coke. which as far as i know you get hit instantly with the effects. So you use the neuroreceptors and make a chemical like the botulin toxin but to target these receptors and not any bad receptors. actually this is alot like that Synthehol thread.

    and basically any chemical has a lethality dosage. Water could even be lethal in HUGE amounts. Ethanol(beer) has a lethality dosage, what 40% blood level?

    i suspect that this is very possible to work. and if it was to work. it would be such a huge thing.

    Just think of how well this would work in a hostage situation. The negotiator accepts to go in to exchange for 2-3 other hostages. but he goes in with a nice little stinkbomb that will instantly knock out him and the terrorist. It would work out so well. or you could just teargas gun it in and hope hes knocked out before he can do anything bad.
     
  8. Apr 13, 2006 #7

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well, i gotta say that ends my knowledge on the subject but i'm sure theres no easy way to do it or someone woudl be making millions on it by now.
     
  9. Apr 13, 2006 #8
    before cars were made everybody used horses. id laugh if someone said

    "im sure there's no easy way to make a mechanical horse, or someone would be making millions on it by now."

    your right, maybe no easy way. but the application and worth of this knowledge would be priceless just if they used it for hostage situations.
     
  10. Apr 13, 2006 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No, such a thing would also most certainly be illegal under the Geneva Conventions.
     
  11. Apr 13, 2006 #10

    dduardo

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus

    How about making any type of weapon fair game to use. That would make it less desireable to go to war.
     
  12. Apr 13, 2006 #11

    Mk

    User Avatar

    How about open-source weapons? Or would the big companies keep em down?
     
  13. Apr 13, 2006 #12
    is that a joke? lol
     
  14. Apr 13, 2006 #13

    Mk

    User Avatar

    I can't find the name... but I'm surprised no body else did. Some kind of exploding cartridges were decided to be put out of use because it so severely hospitalized soldiers of both sides in the war. Munky's ideas are the kind that we would use against alien invasion. Ones where we really want them dead, where its not just a small argument or a web of alliances causing the war.
     
  15. Apr 13, 2006 #14

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well i didn't mean it like that. The time from the actual realization of what an IC engine was to when it was being used was very short. We've known about these chemicals for some time however and things progress much quicker now-a-days with the increased rate of information sharing.
     
  16. Apr 13, 2006 #15

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Are you talking about hollow-points? Aren't those banned by the GC?
     
  17. Apr 14, 2006 #16
    well forum has been down for awhile.

    but from CSI itself.

    You take a normal bullet and put much heavier metal for the tip(so like very heavy uranium for the tip and copper for the shell). with the heavier tip. it has just a bit more momentum(mass*velocity) and then it has a little more hitting power and depending on the difference in metal materials the bullet may even have the power to armor pierce. so regardless when it hits the tip breaks off and the rest mushrooms and spins and cuts the meat to hell. Hollow point on the otherhand is pretty much the same thing without the heavy tip.

    As for explosive ammo. I honestly cant think of anything. Generally the largest guns are like .50 cal and those are usually mounted guns. with the exception of those berret sniper rifles which are .50 cal. and well .50 cal is probably not big enough to carry much of a bang. Usually the problem with explosives is that to get a bang you either need lots of space for like tnt/c4 or you have something pretty unstable like nitroglycerin.

    which is why i was thinking more of an alkali metal. it will be pretty hot until it hits your body and hits water(we are like 80% water :) ) and well im sure everyone mixed lithium with water and then mixed sodium in water. and had little sparks. Then my teacher, being insane and a guy who loves the big fireworks. He had a piece of potassium and a nice sized piece of rubidium and it made some nice effects.

    Then my teacher said in chemistry class his proffessor had a large fish tank and placed a fist sized piece in it and it was a real good bit of fireworks. Though i cant say i really believe that though. as id expect rubidium to be a liquid in room temp.

    But to go back to explosive ammo. Once you get to much larger calibers. you can get cannon like ammo which is explosive. or my favourite. Aircraft guns. Whats real funny is that the Red Baron from like the world war. His .50 cal guns or the fokker plane. the bullets coming out those guns arent even fast enough to catch the jets that we have today. f-16 etc. and those guns took loads of bullets to take out another plane. The guns on the modern aircraft. you'll have 500 bullets or whatever. but you need only 2 to hit and its just as good as a missle hitting. as the caliber is so big and they are explosive so when they hit the plane. They do big damage. So are they illegal. I would assume not as nato-canada-usa-china-russia-israel all use this technology that i know for a fact. other countries might also be. id expect alot of the other european countries also do.

    well i expect that was the point usually, "kill your enemy before he kills you." plus there is my other idea to create a super stun neurotoxin core type of weapon. which is the complete opposite of kill or injure anyone.
     
  18. Apr 14, 2006 #17

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What is the website? What you said didn't sound like you interpretted what they said correctly. A heavier tip does not translate into more momentum, it really depends on the assumption that you use a larger charge...wait is that the word? I've been playing this stupid game too long....
     
  19. Apr 14, 2006 #18
    website? CSI is a tv show. they have like 3 series going.

    /though im just checking some sites and i think i stumbled on something rather close to what ive been saying.

    i never really thought of phosphorus. it seems like its a lighter material. So it wouldnt make as well of a bullet which tends to like to pierce.

    Hollow_point_bullet
    well so much for me lol. so how about that neurotoxin that instantly incapacitates.

    perhaps momentum is a bad/wrong word. but think of it more like this. Say you have 2 cars. one is made of entirely plastic and somehow you accelerate it to 100 m/s using Z force when it impacts this ballistics gelatine wall it will penetrate X distance. If you take the next car. which is all plastic except the car the bumper is made of a very strong unbreakable material which is essentially a negligible increase of mass. So when force Z is applied your going 99.9 m/s instead. when it hits. the bumper wont break and will continue on without breaking up.

    Now when you look at it like this it makes sense. unless the original bullet your thinking of is like full metal jacket which are meant not to break up and fragment thusly fmjs stay pretty damn strong. with lots and lots of piercing power.

    the word i think ur looking for is explosive or propellant. but charge works perfectly fine.
     
  20. Apr 14, 2006 #19

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Wait wait, you're using a TV show as a reference???
     
  21. Apr 14, 2006 #20
    you would perfer i use a good old geocities webpage?
    Fine here you go.

    I dunno as far as i can tell CSI was telling the truth. at the time they were moreso explaining this specific bullet they had. which was made to pierce cop bullet proof vests and thusly kill cops. (cop-killers) the tip being a much heavier metal doesnt deform and the vest doesnt stop it as easy so it goes straight thru. but when it hits through the tough vest. the tip which broke off from the vest's resistance is now free to go off on its own and the now "flatish/hollowtipped" remaining part is free to open up and mushroom and cause lots of problems.

    Now when you want to shoot further then close combat. you need faster speeds(might be hard to shoot 2km if the bullet only goes 500m/s, 4 seconds of gravity, thats alot of bullet drop.) and thusly the power goes up. so the tip wont be enough to pierce. its more of a core of lead or some other heavy metal(my fav is depleted uranium(it just sounds cool)) with a jacket that moreso is meant to break up quickly on impact and the core keep going.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Geneva convention and weapons
  1. Weapons (Replies: 13)

  2. Ruin Weapon! (Replies: 6)

  3. Weapons of Choice (Replies: 15)

  4. Archimedes' weapon (Replies: 11)

Loading...